Lifting the Veil: 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 in Light of Jewish Homiletic and Commentary Traditions 3110374315, 9783110374315

Table of contents :
Part One: Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 34 in Light of the Undisputed Epistles
1. Introduction
1.1 The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis
1.1.1 Pauline Exegesis in the Corinthian Correspondence: The Search for Origins
1.1.1.1 2 Cor 3:7-18 as Literary Insertion: Hans Windisch and His Heirs
1.1.1.2 2 Cor 3:7-18 as Authentic Epistolary Component and Pauline Composition
1.2 Contributions
1.2.1 Rereading Paul in his Corinthian Context
1.2.2 Paul and the Hellenistic Commentary Tradition
1.2.3 Pauline Hermeneutics: The Ways of the Fox
1.3 Overview
2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stiicke”
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Patterns of Exegesis
2.2 Gal 4:21-5:1
2.2.1 The Exegetical Pattern
2.2.2 The Pericope
2.2.3 Explicit Pauline Controls
2.2.4 Implicit Old Testament Controls
2.2.5 A Narratological Confirmation: Graphe as Sarah, Paul as God
2.3 Rom 4:3-25
2.3.1 The Exegetical Pattern
2.3.2 The Pericope
2.3.3 Explicit Pauline Controls
2.3.4 Implicit Scriptural Controls
2.3.5 Further Epistolary Controls: Rom 3:27-4:2
2.4 1 Cor 10:1-13
2.4.1 The Exegetical Pattern
2.4.2 The Pericope
2.4.3 Explicit Pauline Controls
2.4.4 Implicit Scriptural Controls
2.5 2 Cor 3:7-18
2.5.1 The Exegetical Pattern
2.5.2 The Pericope
2.5.3 Explicit Pauline Controls
2.5.4 Implicit Scriptural Control
2.6 Conclusion
2.6.1 Implicit Scriptural Controls on Pauline Exegesis
2.6.2 Explicit Pauline Controls: Citation Formulae and Exegetical Markers
2.6.3 The Use of Exegetical Traditions in the Pauline Epistles?
2.7 Additional Tables
Part Two: Secondary-Level Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries, Homilies, and Other Exegetical Writings
3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries
3.1 Introduction: Paul and the Commentary Tradition
3.1.1 Pauline Patterns
3.1.2 The Commentary Tradition
3.1.3 Plotting Pauline Exegesis: A Way Forward
3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 Philo’s Three Commentaries on the Pentateuch
3.2.3 Stylistic Unevenness in the Allegorical Commentary
3.2.4 The Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary
3.2.5 The Exposition of the Law and the Allegorical Commentary
3.2.6 Two Philonic Exegeses of Gen 12:4
3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata and Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus
3.3.1 Secondary Biblical Lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary
3.3.2 Deus 87-90 and the Exegetical Pattern of 2 Cor 3:7-18
3.3.3 Theoretical Excursus: Exegesis, Text, and Story
3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary
3.4.1 Introduction
3.4.2 Meno 87b7-d as a Secondary Lemma
3.4.3 Meno 98a3-4 as a Secondary Lemma
3.4.4 The Meno and the Theaetetus in Dialogue
3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls
3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.2 The Pesharim
3.5.3 llQMelchizedek: Explicit Controls
3.5.4 llQMelchizedek: Implicit Prophetic Controls
3.6 Conclusion
3.7 Additional Tables
4. Secondary-Level Exegesis in Homilies, Gospels, Treatises, and Greco-Roman Letters
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Homilies in the New Testament
4.2.1 The Preaching of the Early Church
4.2.2 Hebrews 3-4 as Exegetical Hypodeigma
4.2.2.1 The Sequential Exegetical Pattern
4.2.2.2 The Circular Ending
4.2.2.3 The Complex Scriptural Speaker: David and the Holy Spirit
4.2.3 Homilies in Acts
4.2.4 Acts 2: The Paradigm in Miniature
4.2.4.1 The Sequential Exegetical Pattern
4.2.4.2 The Circular Ending
4.2.4.3 The Complex Scriptural Speaker: David and Christ
4.2.4.4 Toward Identifying a Homiletic Type
4.2.5 The Preaching of jesus
4.2.6 Jesus the Anointed Prophet: Luke 4:16-30
4.2.7 Jesus the Bread of Life: john 6:31-58
4.2.7.1 Explicit johannine Controls
4.2.7.2 Implicit Scriptural Controls
4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 De Jona and the De Jona Fragment
4.3.3 De Sampsone
4.3.4 Conclusion
4.4 Commentary Traditions in the Damascus Document
4.4.1 Conclusion
4.5 Commentary Tradition in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucitium
4.5.1 Epistula 58
4.5.1.1 Ep. 58.1-7: Latin Lexicography and Its Philosophical Deficiency
4.5.1.2 Ep. 58.8-24: Plato’s Categories of Existence
4.6 Conclusion
4.7 Additional Table
Part Three: Lifting the Veil: The Rhetorical Function and Theological Purpose of Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus
5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7-18 as Exegetical Amplification
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame: Exegetical Excursus in Commentary, Homily, Treatise, and Epistle
5.2.1 Introduction
5.2.2 Secondary Lemmata and Philonic Exegetical Poetics
5.2.3 2 Cor 3:7-18 in Ught of Philo
5.2.4 Exegetical Amplification in the Epistle to the Hebrews
5.2.5 2 Cor 3:7-18 in Ught of Hebrews
5.2.6 Exegetical Amplification in the Damascus Document
5.2.6.1 The Rhetorical Use of the Three Nets Pesher in the Damascus Document
5.2.7 2 Cor 3:7-18 in Ught of the Damascus Document
5.2.8 Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium
5.2.9 2 Cor 3:7-18 in Ught of Seneca’s Epistulae Morales
5.3 Conclusion: Literary Unity, Paul’s Opponents, and a New Vision of Moses
5.3.1 Covenant Renewal
5.3.2 Paul’s Opponents
5.3.3 Re-visioning Moses
6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7-18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle Tradition
6.1 Introduction: Paul among the Sophists and the Exegetes
6.2 The Faces of Moses in 2 Cor 2:14-4:6
6.2.1 Moses and the Pauline Diakonia in 2 Cor 2:14-4:6
6.3 An Apostle Uke Moses (2 Cor 3:7-11)?
6.4 A People Uke Moses (2 Cor 3:12-18): Mosaic Exemplarity in Paul, Philo, and the Epistle to the Hebrews
6.4.1 Moses as Parrhesiast in Philo {Her. 1-21) and 2 Corinthians
6.4.2 Priestly Parrhisia in the Epistle to the Hebrews and 2 Corinthians
6.4.3 Entering the Tent in Philo and 2 Corinthians
6.4.3.1 Philo, Gig. 53-54
6.4.3.2 Philo, Leg. 2.53-55
6.4.4 Seeing in a Glass, Gloriously: Philo and 2 Corinthians
6.5 A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo
References
Index of Ancient Sources
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Michael Cover Lifting the Veil

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Edited by Carl R. Holladay, Matthias Konradt, Hermann Lichtenberger, Jens Schröter and Gregory E. Sterling

Volume 210

Michael Cover

Lifting the Veil

2 Corinthians 3:7–18 in Light of Jewish Homiletic and Commentary Traditions

DE GRUYTER

ISBN 978-3-11-037431-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-036896-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039273-9 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

For Robin Calvert Cover φυᾷ τὸ γενναῖον ἐπιπρέπει ἐκ πατέρων παισὶ λῆμα. Pindar, Pythian 8.44– 45

and Janet Gayle Cover χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε. Philippians 4:4

Preface This study constructs a dialogue between Paul of Tarsus and Philo of Alexandria, two Jewish men who, despite never meeting one another, both flourished in the Mediterranean Diaspora during first century of the Common Era. It is remarkable that the historical and literary record permits us to recreate the “parallel lives” and theologies of these two figures—so similar and yet so different—from their ipsissima vox et verba. Unlike Plutarch’s famous pairs, however, this study sets in relief two contemporaneous rather than two diachronically separated figures. Neither is it about the lives of Paul and Philo per se, nor about each man to the same degree. Primarily, as the title suggests, this study is about Paul the Apostle, who forms both its point of departure and ultimate telos. Paul’s remarkable interpretation of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians, the account of Moses’ second descent from Mount Sinai, guides the study throughout. If Paul frames this work at beginning and end, Philo in many ways forms its discursive center. He is the figure on whom my thesis about Paul pivots. Beginning this inquiry with an exegetical question, moreover, rather than a theological, philosophical, or rhetorical one, is a debt I owe to the Alexandrian. Of course, all four of the above-stated emphases will play a role in this study. But a monograph can only do so much. In sum, then, this whole project might be summarized as a voyage from Paul’s epistolary interpretation of scripture to Philo’s exegesis in the Allegorical Commentary and back again, with a few minor and major stops along the way. It is hoped, however, that such a voyage will contribute to a better understanding of Paul’s contingent theology and exegesis in the Corinthian context, as well as in his other letters. On the more distant horizon lies the comparison of two theological hermeneutics and two patterns of religion. Many have made initial forays into such a comparison. Philo was certainly the more erudite of the two, but Paul displays a particular genius of his own, in his unique fusing of the Jewish philosophical and apocalyptic thought. Much more exciting work remains to be done in this vein, for which this study hopefully provides some reconnaissance. This monograph would not have been completed without the counsel and support of many friends and colleagues and it falls to me here to acknowledge those people without whose teaching and assistance this project would never have reached fruition. It is a thing “both necessary and excellent,” however, as Philo says, first to render thanks and honor to God (Spec. 1.195), whose grace and love have carried me through the various peaks and valleys of the last six years and for whose sake all these inquiries are undertaken. If I may

VIII

Preface

be permitted to modify slightly Philo’s formulation (cf. Leg. 1.84): πεπύρωμαι ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ θεοῦ. Among many influential teachers, thanks goes first to Gregory Sterling, my Doktorvater, whose wise and patient counsel has overseen every stage of this project. It was Greg’s idea to study Paul and Philo together, following an instinct perhaps best enunciated by E. P. Sanders in one of his memoirs, that the study of religion ought always to be comparative. “To know one religion is to know none. The human brain learns by comparing.”¹ Our discussions about Paul, Philo, and numerous other subjects have shaped me as a scholar and I am grateful for his training. Even in his move to Yale Divinity School and the assumption of many new responsibilities there as dean, Greg continued indefatigably as a dedicated director. Many others have helped form and hone my interests over the years. Early on, David Petrain, Richard Rutherford, and John Hare shaped me as a reader of Plato and Aristotle; Harold Attridge, Christopher Beeley, Adela Yarbro Collins, John Collins, and Morwenna Ludlow deepened my interest in early Judaism and Christianity. At the University of Notre Dame, thanks are due especially to John Meier and Tzvi Novick, who have spent countless hours discussing various aspects of this project and who serve as models of academic and pedagogical excellence. Gary Anderson, David Aune, Mary Rose D’Angelo, Eugene Ulrich, and James Vanderkam all contributed significantly to my reading of Paul in his Roman and Second Temple Jewish contexts. Thanks are also due to Gretchen Reydams-Schils, who both as a teacher and as convener of the Notre Dame Workshop on Ancient Philosophy introduced me to the delights and difficulties of studying Hellenistic Philosophy; to Robin Darling Young, who taught me Armenian; and to Valéry Laurand of the University of Bordeaux, who graciously invited me to give a lecture exploring the role of parrhēsia in 2 Corinthians. I am grateful to the editors at BZNW for accepting this manuscript; and to the staff at De Gruyter, particularly Albrecht Döhnert, Stefan Selbman, Sabina Dabrowski, and Katrin Mittmann, who have helped me throughout the publishing process. At various points in composing and revising the book manuscript, I benefited from conversations with Daniel Schwartz, Peder Borgen, David Runia, Volker Rabens, and Hans Dieter Betz, as well as several new colleagues at Marquette, including Joshua Burns, Robert Masson, and my graduate assistant, Tyler Stewart.

 Ed Parish Sanders, “Comparing Judaism and Christianity: An Academic Autobiography,” in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders (ed. Fabian E. Udoh et al.; Notre Dame, In.: University of Notre Dame, 2008), 11– 41, esp. 14. This comparative principle remains relevant even though most would claim that Philo and Paul represent two haireseis of Judaism, rather than two distinct religions.

Preface

IX

In the end, however, I am responsible for the claims made in this book and take full responsibility for any shortcomings or errors. In addition to these notes of personal thanks, I wish to extend my gratitude to two institutions which have provided me with the time to rethink and revise this work. First, my thanks to Christ College and the Lilly Fellows Program at Valparaiso University and all my colleagues there, particularly Mark Schwehn, Dorothy Bass, Joe Creech, Mary Beth Fraser Connolly, Kathy Sutherland, Peter Kanelos, Ron Rittgers, Julien Smith, David Clark, Anna Stewart, Kate Kennedy Steiner, and Ian Clausen. A first stage of this revision happened during my happy year at Valpo in the basement of Linwood House, and I was spurred on in my work by our daily lunches and weekly Monday colloquia rethinking the relationship between teaching and research. Thanks are also due to the Marquette University Theology Department, to my new colleagues here, and especially the outgoing and incoming chairs, Susan Wood and Bob Masson. A generous course reduction in my first semester at Marquette enabled me to present my work at several conferences, refine my thoughts, and complete this revision. Finally, several notes of thanks are due to my family. First, to my father and mother: this work is dedicated to you, for your commitment to my academic and pastoral vocation and for your example of a loving and faithful marriage. Second, to our daughters, Elizabeth Agnes and Lucia Miriam, who are my daily joy and light. Finally, to Susanna: for agreeing to marry me eight years ago; for being a wise and patient companion, a fellow pioneer in this Middle West, a loving mother, and a friend of friends. You make the words of the Psalm ring true: “they who go through the desert vale, shall find it filled with springs.” Michael Cover Wauwatosa, Wisconsin Feast of Saint Barnabas

Contents Part One: Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 34 in Light of the Undisputed Epistles . Introduction 3 3 . The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis .. Pauline Exegesis in the Corinthian Correspondence: The Search for Origins 7 ... 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 as Literary Insertion: Hans Windisch and His Heirs ... 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 as Authentic Epistolary Component and Pauline Composition 11 13 . Contributions .. Rereading Paul in his Corinthian Context 13 .. Paul and the Hellenistic Commentary Tradition 18 .. Pauline Hermeneutics: The Ways of the Fox 19 26 . Overview . Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke” 29 29 . Introduction .. Patterns of Exegesis 30 . Gal 4:21 – 5:1 31 33 .. The Exegetical Pattern .. The Pericope 33 35 .. Explicit Pauline Controls .. Implicit Old Testament Controls 39 .. A Narratological Confirmation: Graphē as Sarah, Paul as God . Rom 4:3 – 25 48 .. The Exegetical Pattern 48 .. The Pericope 49 .. Explicit Pauline Controls 50 .. Implicit Scriptural Controls 58 .. Further Epistolary Controls: Rom 3:27 – 4:2 61 . 1 Cor 10:1 – 13 63 .. The Exegetical Pattern 64 .. The Pericope 65 .. Explicit Pauline Controls 67

45

8

XII

.. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .

Contents

Implicit Scriptural Controls 72 78 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 The Exegetical Pattern 79 The Pericope 79 Explicit Pauline Controls 81 84 Implicit Scriptural Control Conclusion 90 90 Implicit Scriptural Controls on Pauline Exegesis Explicit Pauline Controls: Citation Formulae and Exegetical Markers 91 The Use of Exegetical Traditions in the Pauline Epistles? Additional Tables 93

91

Part Two: Secondary-Level Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries, Homilies, and Other Exegetical Writings . Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries 99 . Introduction: Paul and the Commentary Tradition 99 99 .. Pauline Patterns .. The Commentary Tradition 100 .. Plotting Pauline Exegesis: A Way Forward 104 106 . Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria .. Introduction 106 .. Philo’s Three Commentaries on the Pentateuch 110 .. Stylistic Unevenness in the Allegorical Commentary 113 .. The Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary 115 .. The Exposition of the Law and the Allegorical Commentary 121 .. Two Philonic Exegeses of Gen 12:4 122 . Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata and Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 124 .. Secondary Biblical Lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary 124 .. Deus 87 – 90 and the Exegetical Pattern of 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 126 .. Theoretical Excursus: Exegesis, Text, and Story 128 . Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary 134 .. Introduction 134 .. Meno 87b7 – c1 as a Secondary Lemma 136 .. Meno 98a3 – 4 as a Secondary Lemma 138 .. The Meno and the Theaetetus in Dialogue 141

XIII

Contents

. .. .. .. .. . .

Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls 145 Introduction The Pesharim 146 11QMelchizedek: Explicit Controls 149 11QMelchizedek: Implicit Prophetic Controls 154 157 Conclusion Additional Tables 157

145

. Secondary-Level Exegesis in Homilies, Gospels, Treatises, and Greco160 Roman Letters 160 . Introduction . Homilies in the New Testament 163 .. The Preaching of the Early Church 163 164 .. Hebrews 3 – 4 as Exegetical Hypodeigma ... The Sequential Exegetical Pattern 164 ... The Circular Ending 166 167 ... The Complex Scriptural Speaker: David and the Holy Spirit .. Homilies in Acts 167 .. Acts 2: The Paradigm in Miniature 170 ... The Sequential Exegetical Pattern 170 175 ... The Circular Ending ... The Complex Scriptural Speaker: David and Christ 175 ... Toward Identifying a Homiletic Type 176 178 .. The Preaching of Jesus .. Jesus the Anointed Prophet: Luke 4:16 – 30 180 .. Jesus the Bread of Life: John 6:31 – 58 182 ... Explicit Johannine Controls 185 ... Implicit Scriptural Controls 187 . Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone 195 .. Introduction 195 .. De Jona and the De Jona Fragment 199 .. De Sampsone 205 .. Conclusion 212 . Commentary Traditions in the Damascus Document 212 .. Conclusion 218 . Commentary Tradition in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 218 .. Epistula 58 220 ... Ep. 58.1 – 7: Latin Lexicography and Its Philosophical Deficiency 220

XIV

Contents

... Ep. 58.8 – 24: Plato’s Categories of Existence 223 . Conclusion . Additional Table 225

222

Part Three: Lifting the Veil: The Rhetorical Function and Theological Purpose of Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 34 . Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification 229 229 . Introduction . Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame: Exegetical Excursus in Commentary, Homily, Treatise, and Epistle 230 230 .. Introduction .. Secondary Lemmata and Philonic Exegetical Poetics 231 .. 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of Philo 234 .. Exegetical Amplification in the Epistle to the Hebrews 236 238 .. 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of Hebrews .. Exegetical Amplification in the Damascus Document 239 ... The Rhetorical Use of the Three Nets Pesher in the Damascus 240 Document .. 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Damascus Document 243 .. Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 246 248 .. 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of Seneca’s Epistulae Morales . Conclusion: Literary Unity, Paul’s Opponents, and a New Vision of Moses 249 .. Covenant Renewal 250 .. Paul’s Opponents 251 .. Re-visioning Moses 256 . Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle Tradition 258 . Introduction: Paul among the Sophists and the Exegetes 258 . The Faces of Moses in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6 262 .. Moses and the Pauline Diakonia in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6 265 . An Apostle Like Moses (2 Cor 3:7–11)? 266 . A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18): Mosaic Exemplarity in Paul, Philo, and the Epistle to the Hebrews 270 .. Moses as Parrhesiast in Philo (Her. 1–21) and 2 Corinthians 273

Contents

..

Priestly Parrhēsia in the Epistle to the Hebrews and 277 2 Corinthians .. Entering the Tent in Philo and 2 Corinthians 280 ... Philo, Gig. 53–54 281 ... Philo, Leg. 2.53–55 285 287 .. Seeing in a Glass, Gloriously: Philo and 2 Corinthians . A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo 296 References

304

Index of Ancient Sources

323

Index of Modern Authors

333

Index of Subjects

337

XV

Part One: Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 34 in Light of the Undisputed Epistles

1. Introduction 1.1 The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis Paul’s sustained exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, which leaps unexpectedly from the epistle like an interpretive bolt from the blue, has proved a perennial riddle and resource for its interpreters, modern and ancient. Set as an epideictic showpiece at the conciliatory heart of Paul’s least rhetorically unified Hauptbrief, the passage has been mined as evidence for the context in which the Corinthian correspondence was written and has been viewed by Paul’s earliest patristic exegetes onward as the key to the Apostle’s scriptural hermeneutics.¹ The chief enigma, however, posed by Paul’s exegesis in 2 Corinthians is simply what to call it. Pursuing this question a little here will provide a felicitous way of introducing the aims of this project. If one searches, first, for an “emic” description, the term which most readily suggests itself is probably “midrash.”² One can hardly open a study of Paul’s use of scripture without finding this category at least mentioned,³ and in part for good reason. One of the major advances in Pauline scholarship of the last century—especially in the work of Albert Schweitzer, W. D. Davies, E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, N. T. Wright, Daniel Boyarin, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Paula Fredriksen—has been to recognize (again) the Jewishness of Paul’s thought in the letters, including his inter-

 Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 141, n. 5, summarizes the importance of 2 Cor 3:7– 18 for early Christian hermeneutics, noting that “one could write an entire history of early Christian biblical interpretation via the mirror and the veil.”  The title “midrash” arises from Paul’s sequential interpretation of Exod 34:29 – 34(35). The tradition of calling this passage a midrash begins at least as early as Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), 112, and has been echoed in recent scholarship, inter alia, by James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 421; and Gregory E. Sterling, “‘The Image of God’: Becoming like God in Philo, Paul, and Early Christianity,” in Portraits of Jesus: Essays in Christology (FS Harold Attridge; WUNT 2.321; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 157– 73. Scholars of early Judaism and comparative midrash have also occasionally adopted this term. See, e. g., Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), passim; esp. 210, where Levenson speaks of “Paul’s midrash” in Gal 3:16.  So, e. g., Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 10 – 14, includes an extensive review and critique of previous uses of “midrash” in Pauline studies before charting a different course.

4

1. Introduction

pretation of scripture.⁴ The term midrash seems doubly appropriate in Paul’s case as a shorthand moniker, since it reinforces the Palestinian, Pharisaic, and Semitic inflections of Paul’s otherwise Greek exegesis (Phil 3:5) and highlights its continuity with the apocalyptic Essene commentaries discovered at Qumran.⁵ Despite these apparent gains, however, there are also some serious drawbacks to using the term. The most obvious is the relative paucity of this root in the vocabulary of Second Temple Jewish exegetes and its complete absence in Paul’s letters.⁶ Relatedly, and of even greater importance, “midrash” emerges in post-70 rabbinic Judaism as a technical term at the center of tannaitic and amoraic discourse and identity, which is hotly debated among contemporary scholars of early Judaism.⁷ Given the risk that using the term “midrash” will cre-

 See Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1931]); William D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1967); E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977); James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT 185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Nicholas T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 4; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013); Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Contraversions 1; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); and the articles by Schwartz and Fredriksen in Paul’s Jewish Matrix (ed. T. G. Casey and J. Taylor; Bible in Dialogue 2; Mahway, NJ: Paulist Press, 2011).  For an exemplary, exegetical instance of the root/form ‫מדרש‬, see 4QFlor 1:14. For the relevance of the pesharim to Pauline exegesis more broadly, see Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). “Midrash,” however, is by no means the most frequent way of describing scriptural exegesis at Qumran, and has been viewed by some as potentially anachronistic in that context. See, e. g., Steven Fraade, “Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran,” Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. M. E. Stone and E. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 59 – 79.  In addition to the question of whether Paul knew the Hebrew term ‫ מדרש‬from his training as a Pharisee (Phil 3:5), it is worth noting that the related and perhaps originating rhetorical term ζήτησις and its cognates, which are present passim in Philo’s commentaries, do not occur in an unambiguously exegetical sense in Paul’s undisputed letters (cf. 1 Tim 1:4, 6:4; 2 Tim 2:23; Tit 3:9; John 3:25). This does not mean that Paul had not learned techniques related to ζήτησις through Greek paideia in Tarsus or advanced Jewish education. According to an intriguing phrase in the letter of Claudius Lysius in Acts 23:29, Paul has been brought up on charges περὶ ζητημάτων τοῦ νόμου; see also Acts 25:19, 20.  Rachel Anisfeld, Sustain Me with Raisin Cakes: Pesikta de Rav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism (JSJSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 7– 8, summarizes the debate between the hermeneutical/internal description of midrash held by Daniel Boyarin and the historical/external understanding of midrash held by Joseph Heinemann and David Stern. One may trace a related disagreement between those like James Kugel, for whom midrash is an exegetical, “interpretive stance” (James Kugel, “Two Introductions to Midrash,” Midrash and Literature [ed. G. H.

1.1 The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis

5

ate an anachronistic analogy with later rabbinic forms and methods, I have opted not to use it as primary descriptor of Paul’s exegesis in this study.⁸ If “Paul’s midrash” will not work, then what might? Again, looking to “emic” terms, “Paul’s allegory” presents itself as another prominent contender. The verb cognate with ἀλληγορία does appear in Paul’s letters (Gal 4:24)—though not in 2 Corinthians—and thus “allegory,” broadly defined as embracing both its Platonizing and typological poles, might do well in this instance.⁹ Despite its attractiveness, however, “allegory” possesses several of the same drawbacks as “midrash.” Not only does calling Paul’s exegesis of Exodus in 2 Corinthians an “allegory” run the risk of aligning it with later patristic developments of this method, it may also suggest a uniquely Greek and Platonizing method undergirding Paul’s exegesis—on analogy with Philo’s contemporaneous use of allegory. It may also do too much to homogenize Paul’s “method” in Galatians and the Corinthian Correspondence (on this, see below). While it will be a major aim of this study to lift up several important connections between Paul and Alexandrian biblical exegesis, to call Paul’s method at the outset “allegory” presupposes this conclusion and may suggest a greater degree of affinity between Paul’s exegesis and Philo’s than I actually intend to endorse. “Paul’s midrash” and “Paul’s allegory” both suffer from an additional weakness: that midrash and allegory in the Second Temple period both describe primarily an interpretive stance, attitude, end, compositional technique, or hermeneutical lens (viz. allegoresis); and only secondarily, a literary form.¹⁰ Part of the

Hartman and S. Budick; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986], 77– 103, esp. 91), with roots in the Second Temple period, the end of which is “to reinterpret or actualize a given text of the past for present circumstances” (Aune, “Midrash,” 304, summarizing René Bloch, “Midrash,” DBSup 5 [1955]: 1263 – 81) and those like Paul Mandel, for whom 70 C.E. was of decisive moment in establishing a new scriptural inflection in rabbinic halakhic reasoning (see Paul Mandel, “Legal Midrash between Hillel and Rabbi Akiva: Did 70 C.E. Make a Difference,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, [ed. D. R. Schwartz, Z. Weiss, and R. A. Clements; AJEC 78; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 343 – 370). For a mediating view, see Fraade, “Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran.”  For a similar critical nuance, see Joshua E. Burns, “Rabbinic Literature: New Testament,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible (ed. M. D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 247– 56.  See Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002 [1997]), esp. 186 – 213.  For midrash as a “stance,” see Kugel, “Two Introductions”; for allegory, in addition to Young, Biblical Exegesis, see David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkely: University of California Press, 1992). The notion that one might think of ζήτησις as an “end” of exegesis, rather than a method per se, was suggested by Hans Betz in personal communication.

6

1. Introduction

project of describing 2 Cor 3:7– 18, and Paul’s exegesis more broadly, however, surely involves the question not only of method but also of form, of Paul’s rhetorical use and redactional integration of scriptural exegesis within an epistolary context. Viewed from this angle, does “Paul’s commentary” work any better as a description? Insofar as it does not presuppose a method and highlights the interpretive character of the pericope, one can answer in the affirmative. “Commentary” moreover functions more easily as an “etic” term, while also matching several “emic” descriptions, including ὑπόμνημα (textual commentary), σύγγραμμα (thematic exegetical treatise), the homiletic λόγος παρακλήσεως (word of exhortation), and of course, the Latin commentarius/-um. ¹¹ The obvious disadvantage of speaking of Pauline “commentary,” however, is that his exegesis occurs in none of these forms, but in a Greco-Roman letter. “Commentary” might also run the risk of suggesting too great an affinity with modern exegetical commentaries. Rather than describing Paul’s exegesis primarily with one of these foregoing terms, it seems better to say, as Hans Dieter Betz suggested to me in personal communication,¹² that the form and method of Paul’s epistolary exegesis remains “unknown” at the present time. Indeed, the “unknown” aspects of Paul’s exegetical methods and forms provide the primary raison d’être of this current project. On these ground, I prefer to use a relatively neutral description, “Paul’s exegesis,” to describe Paul’s “use” of scripture in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. It will be the aim of this study to reposition Paul’s exegesis, formally, in light of what we know about Greco-Roman and Jewish commentary genres in the first century and, methodologically, along the spectrum of allegorical, dialectical, rhetorical, and prophetic reading strategies of Second Temple Jewish exegesis, bracketed by the two extreme poles of Alexandria and Qumran. In approaching this task through the particular lens of 2 Cor 3:7– 18, such an important and oft-interpreted passage of the New Testament, I am aware of standing upon the shoulders of giants. The contribution of this study can be viewed from at least three different angles, with decreasing degrees of penetration: I will ask, first, how Paul’s exegetical practices fit within the landscape of the philosophical and scriptural commentary traditions in the first century and what this tells us about Paul’s advanced Jewish education; second, I will ask what Paul’s exegesis tells us about the theological and scriptural dynamics ani For a fuller discussion of these terms and some representative examples, see Part Two of the current study.  The Chicago Society of Biblical Research, Fall Meeting at the Lutheran School of Theology (Chicago), October 2014.

1.1 The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis

7

mating the ministerial rivalry in the Corinthian correspondence; and third, I will ask what this means for Paul’s scriptural hermeneutics. Because my primary focus is historical, I will introduce Paul’s exegesis in this chapter primarily by recounting the way historians have viewed the passage, with regard to the argument of 2 Corinthians and Paul’s Jewish education (angles one and two). I will then suggest a new way forward, provide an overview of the current project, and state the potential literary and hermeneutical contributions of such an endeavor.

1.1.1 Pauline Exegesis in the Corinthian Correspondence: The Search for Origins Since at least the second quarter of the twentieth century, scholars have noted a kind of rhetorical and argumentative disjunction between Paul’s scriptural exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, on the one hand, and the surrounding epistolary apology, on the other. The passage continues to inspire new explanatory theories, which have ramifications for our understanding of Paul’s historical situation in Corinth and for identifying the various groups with whom he interacted. On the one hand, 2 Cor 3:7– 18 has been viewed by some as Paul’s reuse of a commentary or homily, composed for another occasion and only tangentially related to the context of the letter;¹³ as a slight reworking of a homiletic showpiece, written not by Paul but by his missionary opponents in Corinth, who modeled themselves on Moses, the θεῖος ἀνήρ, and drew heavily from the preaching of the Jewish proselytizing mission;¹⁴ or as Paul’s rebuttal against the preaching of Chris-

 “Midrasch” or commentary: Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 112. Cf. Windisch’s qualifying statement on p. 131 that “it can be clearly concluded from 3:4– 6 and 4:1– 6 that the excursus [3:7– 18] is occasioned by apologetic motives.” Previous Pauline Composition: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (II Cor. 3.7– 4.6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif,” Theological Studies 42 (1981): 630 – 44, esp. 632. Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther I – II (4th ed.; completed by W. G. Kümmel; HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), 111. Pauline Homily: C. D. F. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982 [1962]), 54; Peter Richardson, “Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics,” EvQ 45 (1973): 208 – 18, esp. 209, n.7.  See Siegfried Schulz, “Die Decke des Moses: Untersuchungen zu einer vorpaulinischen Überlieferung in 2 Kor. 3:17– 18,” ZNTW 49 (1958): 1– 30; Tadashi Saito, Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen Testament (Bern: P. Lang, 1977); Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (trans. Harold Attridge et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986 [Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, 1964]); Michael Theobald, Die überströmende Gnade: Studien zu einem paulinischen Motivfeld (Würzburg: Echter, 1972); G. Friedrich, “Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief,” in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel: Festschrift für O. Michel

8

1. Introduction

tian sophists,¹⁵ who had already taken the exalted Moses in Exodus 34 as a paradigmatic rhetor. Alternatively, it has been studied by others as a piece of Pauline exegesis composed explicitly for this setting and integrally linked to the argument of 2 Corinthians (or at least 2 Cor 2:14– 7:4);¹⁶ as Paul’s own development of a set of rhetorical exempla or scriptural echoes, but not a sustained or formal exegesis;¹⁷ and, as mentioned earlier, as a summary of Paul’s own exegetical strategy.¹⁸ Implicit in both sides of this debate is the broader question of Paul’s Jewish education and the kind of scriptural commentaries he knew from his early years, continued to encounter as his mission reached westward, and was capable of generating himself. Given the wide variety of positions on the relative importance of Paul’s exegesis of Exodus for his thought and hermeneutics, a more detailed review and assessment of previous scholarship seems warranted.

1.1.1.1 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 as Literary Insertion: Hans Windisch and His Heirs Foundational in setting the agenda for the twentieth-century source-critical debate over this passage was Hans Windisch’s 1924 commentary on 2 Corinthians. Windisch famously argued that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 represented a “christlicher Midrasch über Ex 34:29 – 35,” which Paul had inserted into the polemical context of 2 Cor 3:1– 6, 4:1– 6. Most importantly, Windisch noted the seemingly dispensable nature of this pericope, which departs from the dominant concern of Paul’s epistle: Der Abschnitt gibt sich als eine literarische Einlage; der Stoff ist unabhängig von der brieflichen Situation konzipiert und da die Apologie in 41 ff. wieder aufgenommen wird, so

zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. Otto Betz, Martin Hengel, and Peter Schmidt; AGSU 5; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 181– 215.  George H. Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: the Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (WUNT 232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 313 – 14.  J. D. G. Dunn, “2 Corinthians III.17—‘The Lord is the Spirit,’” JTS 21 (1970): 309 – 320, esp. 311; Carol K. Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant (AnBib 116; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 13, 17; Linda Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1 – 18 (JSNTSupp 52; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 78 – 79; Scott Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: the Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 262– 63.  Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 230, 243; Earl Richard, “Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II COR., III, 1– IV, 6,” RB 88/3 (1981): 340 – 367, esp. 252; Hays, Echoes, 132.  Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift as Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 331– 341.

1.1 The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis

9

konnte die Perikope leicht herausgennomen werden, ohne daß der briefliche Zusammenhang Schaden litte.¹⁹

With this controversial statement, Windisch inaugurated a debate about Paul’s use of a previously composed “midrash” that has not definitively been resolved. Windisch himself bears at least partial responsibility for the ensuing flurry of theories, due to an ambiguity inherent in his commentary. “The section appears like a literary insertion,” he says, but composed by whom? Windisch does not specify here in his initial statement.²⁰ As a result of this ambiguity, several groups of modern scholars have laid claim to Windisch’s legacy. One group, represented by (a) Hans Lietzmann and followed by Joseph Fitzmyer and others, reads Windisch as claiming that Paul himself composed the pericope for a different occasion and then inserted it later into his letter.²¹ A second group is represented by (b) Siegfried Schulz and Dieter Georgi.²² Rather than ascribing Wind-

 Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 112.  In his following exegetical comments, Windisch goes on to speak as though Paul bears full responsibility for the contents of the exegesis. However at the close of the section, he once again speaks ambiguously not of Paul’s but “unser Midrasch” (131). It appears that Windisch, while able to recognize certain inconcinnities between 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and its frame, was not quite comfortable relinquishing Pauline authorship of the text.  See Lietzmann, An die Korinther I – II, 111: “Die in 6 formulierte These beweist Paulus 7—18 in einem ‘christliche Midrasch über Ex 3429—35’ (Windisch), den er wohl schon früher und in anderem Zusammenhang gebildet hat …” [emphasis mine]; and Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected,” 632. C. D. F. Moule, Birth, 54, proposed more specifically that the pericope was a Pauline synagogue homily, composed for another occasion; he is followed by Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), 59 and Richardson, “Spirit and Letter,” 209, n.7.  The line of continuity between Windisch and Georgi, though oft-repeated in Forschungsberichte, is less clear than the line between Windisch and Lietzmann, particularly because Windisch himself explicitly dismissed Adolf von Schlatter’s “ingenious (geistreiche) suggestion … that someone in Corinth used the figure of Moses as a criticism against Paul” (Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 131). The genealogy must be traced indirectly through Schulz. Georgi cites Schulz as the precedent for his claim in Opponents, 261, that “2 Cor. 3 shows that the example of Moses in the pericope Exod. 34:29 – 35 was their [i. e. Paul’s opponents] basic point of reference.” See also Georgi’s earlier claim at Opponents, 250 (“the sudden introduction of the Moses figure [2 Cor 3], which has puzzled exegetes, is most readily explained if the opponents placed it at the focal point of their proclamation”) which presumably also goes back to Schulz, even though Georgi does not acknowledge it. It was Schulz who, beginning his study of this pericope with an extensive quotation of Windisch’s analysis quoted above (Schulz, “Decke,” 1– 2), ultimately parted ways with him and posited the origin of Paul’s exegesis in the preaching of his opponents (Schulz, “Decke,” 27– 30). It would appear, then, that Lietzmann stands closer to the letter of Windisch. Schulz and Georgi developed Windisch’s observation in a direction that he may

10

1. Introduction

isch’s proposed midrash to Paul, Schulz and Georgi argue that Paul in fact is alluding to—or in Georgi’s case, extensively quoting—a written exegesis of Exodus 34 composed by Paul’s missionary opponents in Corinth. These opponents had themselves drawn on exegetical traditions known to them from Hellenistic Judaism, especially Jewish apologetics. The views of Schulz and Georgi have been accepted and adapted further in an important recent study by George H. Van Kooten. Drawing on Bruce Winter’s work on Paul and the Second Sophistic, Van Kooten posits that Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians used the techniques of Roman sophists evinced in Dio Chrysostom and Herodes Atticus.²³ Despite their differences, both of these groups agree with Windisch in his suggestion that Paul drew heavily on a pre-composed exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. A position closely related to this second option suggests that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 is a Pauline adaptation of a homily or exegesis typical of the Corinthian pneumatics (thus, not of the outside apostles). One version of this thesis, albeit a complex and speculative one, is advanced by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor.²⁴ A third, significant appropriation is that of (c) Dietrich-Alex Koch, who suggests that Windisch’s thesis ought to be accepted in a revised form. Koch suggests that 2 Cor 3:12– 18, but not 2 Cor 3:7– 11, “stellt sich … als literarische ‘Einlage’ dar,” and centers around “ein eigenständiges Thema.”²⁵ This allows him to view the second part of Paul’s exegesis as a hermeneutical treatise, independent of Paul’s epistolary apology.

have foreseen, but did not take. That critics of Georgi have seen fit to dub his thesis “ingenious” shows him to be not only a debtor to Windisch but also the heir of Schlatter.  Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists (SNTSMS 96; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). See Van Kooten, Anthropology, 334, where Van Kooten clearly lays claim to the mantle of Georgi and transforms the latter’s theory from one group of opponents to another.  Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to Second Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 71, who argues that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 is meant to appeal to the Corinthian pneumatikoi, schooled as they were by Apollos and Philonic traditions: “Paul has entered into the thought world of the pneumatikoi, and has appropriated some of their key concepts (suitably transformed) in order to demonstrate that at least some elements of their ‘wisdom’ could be integrated into his presentation of the gospel. His subtle criticism, in other words, is balanced by a graceful concession, which is perfectly in place in a letter of reconciliation.” Murphy-O’Connor sees Paul fighting on an entirely different front, against external Judaizing missionaries, in 2 Cor 4:1– 6.  Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 332, who in n.7 explicitly cites Windisch.

1.1 The Enigma of Pauline Exegesis

11

1.1.1.2 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 as Authentic Epistolary Component and Pauline Composition Windisch’s theory about this passage has not been universally adapted or adopted. In addition to the parties mentioned above, many scholars in recent decades have judged it more prudent to dispose of Windisch’s literary or source-critical thesis altogether and argue instead for the compositional integrity of 2 Cor 3:7– 18 within its surrounding context. These scholars have challenged Windisch’s argument on several grounds: in particular, they argue that the discrepancies of content and style between 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and its epistolary frame do not require a source-critical thesis for explanation. One important twentieth-century voice challenging Windisch’s position of literary insertion is, perhaps surprisingly, (d) Rudolf Bultmann. While Bultmann admits the possibility that 2 Cor 3:7– 11 derives from a traditional source,²⁶ he hears too much of Paul’s own authentic voice in 2 Cor 3:12– 18 to give Windisch’s position his full critical endorsement. Even 2 Cor 3:7– 11 he finds “firmly joined to the context by 3:6” and thus concludes: “What is correct in Windisch’s exposition is merely that 3:7– 18 is not anti-Jewish in motivation, but rather contrasts Christianity with Judaism.”²⁷ Some historians of religion would, of course, dispute the use of these terms to describe an authentic Pauline binary;²⁸ but the substance of Bultmann’s observation retains value nonetheless.

 Bultmann’s modification of Windisch is the reciprocal of Koch’s: 2 Cor 3:7– 11, rather than 2 Cor 3:12– 18, represents the self-contained intrusion.  Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians (trans. Roy A. Harrisville; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985; translation of Der zweite Brief an die Korinther [ed. Erich Dinkler; Götttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976]), 84. So also Furnish, II Corinthians, 243: “This much must be conceded to Windisch, that the polemical concerns which come to the surface particularly in 2:17; 3:1; 4:1– 2 are somewhat less apparent (even though they are always just below the surface) in 3:7– 18.”  For the argument that one ought not to speak of “Judaism” in the first century, see Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457– 512. For a lengthier treatment of the meaning of Ἰουδαῖος, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). The term Χριστιανός, of course, does not occur at all in Paul’s writings, but only twice in Acts (11:26; 26:28) and once in 1 Peter (4:16). Χριστιανισμός, the morphological parallel to Paul’s Ἰουδαϊσμός (Gal 1:13) is first attested in Ignatius (Rom. 3:3, etc.) and The Martyrdom of Polycarp (10:1). For recent studies of Paul’s relation to Judaism, ethnic identity, and the “parting of the ways” more broadly, see Joshua D. Garroway, Paul’s Gentile-Jews: Neither Jew nor Gentile, but Both (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); and Matthew V. Novenson, “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (ed. M. W. Elliott, S. J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and J. Frederick; Grand Rapids: Baker

12

1. Introduction

Other scholars have reached similar verdicts. On the far side of the spectrum from Georgi are those like (e) Victor P. Furnish, Richard Hays, and N. T. Wright, who see Paul borrowing key images from Exod 34:[27]29 – 35, especially Exod 34:29 – 30, but not offering a systematic exegesis of the entire biblical passage.²⁹ For these scholars, the text offers not a sequential commentary per se, but a richly textured pastiche of scriptural images. A little closer to the center are scholars like (f) Carol Stockhausen and Scott Hafemann, who see Paul composing the passage by sequentially working through the entire text of Exod 34:[27]29 – 35 and interpreting it within the scope of other biblical intertexts, but without significant help from Jewish exegetical traditions;³⁰ these scholars share with Windisch the conclusion that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 is driven by an exegesis of Exodus. Closer still to the center are (g) scholars like James D. G. Dunn and Linda Belleville, who hold that Paul himself composed this passage in a way similar to (f), but suggest that he drew on widely known Jewish exegetical methods, probably unwritten ones. Gregory E. Sterling has recently supported a similar position, suggesting a connection with Platonizing Judaism as well.³¹ Finally and in a kindred spirit,

Academic, 2014), 24– 39. I thus use the terms “Jew,” “Judaism,” “Christian,” and “Christianity” throughout this study as useful placeholders, in want of a scholarly consensus on this question.  So Furnish, II Corinthians, 230. See also Richard, “Polemics,” 352; Hays, Echoes, 132; and Ibid., 16: “Paul’s discourse in this chapter [2 Cor 3] has its own internal metaphorical logic, which can be described in terms of its unfolding intertextual tropes, without recourse to hypotheses about external sources or influences on the discourse”; and N. T. Wright, “Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3:18,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology: in Memory of George Bradford Caird (ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 139 – 150, esp. 141, n.6, who argues: “We do not need elaborate hypotheses, either of the theology of Paul’s opponents or of the textual prehistory of our passage, to make sense of the argument.” While agreeing with Hays and Wright that the theses of Schulz and Georgi go too far, I am convinced that contextualizing the exegesis in terms of Paul’s own Hellenistic Jewish education and exegetical traditions remains a desideratum.  Willem Cornelis Van Unnik, “‘With Unveiled Face,’ an Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12– 18,” NovT 6 (1963): 153 – 69, esp. 156: “There is not a shred of evidence that the apostle is commenting upon a previously existing document or teaching nor is it clear why Paul himself should have been unable to make this application to the Exodus story.” See also Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil; and Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel.  See reference to Dunn, “2 Corinthians III.17”; and Belleville, Reflections; see also eadem, “Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.7– 18,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSS 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 165 – 186, esp. 165; and Sterling, “Image of God.”

1.2 Contributions

13

(h) Martin McNamara suggests that Paul’s exegesis originated in Jewish traditions related to the Palestinian targumim. ³²

1.2 Contributions 1.2.1 Rereading Paul in his Corinthian Context Of the various historical theories outlined above, three warrant closer consideration for their merits, gaps, and relevance for this project. The first is (b) the view that I have associated with Georgi and Van Kooten, that Paul’s exegesis of Exodus in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 betrays echoes of Platonizing Jewish tradition. The strength of this position is its recognition of certain exegetical, rhetorical, and philosophical similarities between Paul and Alexandrian Judaism, particularly the writings of Philo. Recent scholarship on the letter reveals that we still have much more work to do in exploring the growing body of evidence linking the Corinthian Correspondence and Alexandria.³³ While rightly recognizing this Alexandrian connection and exploring it in helpful ways,³⁴ both Georgi and Van Kooten go too far, in my judgment, by ascribing the exegetical character of 2 Cor 3:7– 18—as well as its focus on Exodus 34 —to Paul’s opponents. Consider, for example, Van Kooten’s nuanced position on the subject:

 Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27a; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966). Alongside McNamara’s approach, there is a long tradition of scholarship which looks for form-critical or hermeneutical parallels to Pauline exegesis in the various corpora of rabbinic midrash. Representative are the approaches of Otto Michel, Paulus Und Seine Bibel (BFCT 18; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 [1929]) and Joachim Jeremias, “Paulus als Hillelit,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (ed. E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969), 88 – 94. This remains, in my estimation, a valuable and undertrodden avenue of research. Given the late date of nearly all of the materials involved, however, a different kind of theoretical finesse is required to render it useful to Pauline studies. As such, the later rabbinic and synagogue materials enter very little into the present study. For further bibliography and an even-handed, critical assessment of this line of study, see Hays, Echoes, 10 – 14.  See, e. g., Volker Rabens, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God: Reading Paul in the Context of Philonic Mystical Traditions,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (ed. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison; Ekstasis 5; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 293 – 329.  Van Kooten’s book, on the whole, is excellent. For an appreciative review, see Gregory E. Sterling, SPhA 22 (2010): 294– 97.

14

1. Introduction

In [the case of 1 Cor 10], it is very likely that Paul himself draws on the narrative of Israel’s journey through the wilderness in order to criticize his opponents’ way of life. In line with this, it could be assumed that in 2 Cor, too, Paul continues to allude to this story, now commenting on the giving of the Law. Yet, this time there are clear signs that it is not Paul himself, but his opponents within the Christian community at Corinth who were the first to refer to this episode of Moses on Mount Sinai.³⁵

While recognizing Paul’s extended interpretation of Exodus and Numbers elsewhere in the Corinthian Correspondence, Van Kooten argues with surprising confidence in this case that “there are clear signs” that Paul’s opponents introduced the subject of Moses in Exodus 34. Amongst these signs is Paul’s reference to συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor 3:1), which signals, for Van Kooten, the presence of sophistic opponents in Corinth.³⁶ This and the other signs tallied by Van Kooten and Georgi, however, seem hardly conclusive evidence for attributing Paul’s exegetical technique and choice of scriptural pericope to anyone other than Paul. Neither Van Kooten nor Georgi addresses the objection that such a method of tacit rebuttal is not as common a procedure in early polemic literature as is direct citation of one’s opponents. This argumentative strategy runs the risk of enshrining the very tradition that Paul is seeking to overturn.³⁷ A second line of scholarship to which this study is indebted, but one which I would also like to nuance, is (e) the intertextual approach to Paul’s scriptural echoes, advanced by Richard Hays and his students. With the intertextuality school, I share an interest in Paul’s implicit interpretation of scripture. Unlike Georgi and Van Kooten, moreover, Hays does not succumb to the temptation to pass off Paul’s exegesis as heavily indebted to his opponents. Hays’ intertextual view of Pauline biblical interpretation, however, also bears with it certain concomitant risks. A first risk, raised by Hays’ theoretical sophistication, is to end up with a kind of ahistorical reading, which overlooks significant overlaps between Pauline allegory and Alexandrian exegetical traditions and methods—those that Georgi and Van Kooten rightly note. Hays’ generalization that Paul “offers helter-skelter, intuitive readings” of the Jewish scriptures “in contrast to other ancient authors such as Philo” overplays the admittedly contingent character of Pauline exegesis and neglects certain traditional elements of Paul’s advanced Jewish education.³⁸

 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 314 (emphasis added).  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 319.  For a critique of Windisch, Schulz, and Georgi along these lines, see Jens Schröter, “Schriftauslegung und Hermeneutik in 2 Korinther 3: ein Beitrag zur Frage der Schriftbenutzung des Paulus,” NovT 40 (1998): 231– 275, esp. 241– 242.  Hays, Echoes, 160 – 161.

1.2 Contributions

15

A second, related risk of Hays’ position involves the accidental homogenization of Paul’s various patterns of exegesis for the sake of establishing a singular Pauline hermeneutic. In the case of 2 Corinthians 3, Hays underplays the commentary pattern of the Exodus exegesis, concluding that Paul “does not give this text close exegetical scrutiny.”³⁹ Rather, for Hays: The only thing that interests Paul about the story is its compelling image of a masked Moses whose veil is removed when he enters the presence of the Lord. That image becomes for Paul the center and substance of an imaginative interpretation that is … mystical and eschatological.⁴⁰

While I agree with Hays’ positive conclusion regarding Moses’ “generative” role in Paul’s theological message,⁴¹ his focus on intertextual echoes obscures the formal structural aspects of Paul’s exegesis that link it to the commentary tradition. This final observation leads me say a word about a third position on 2 Cor 3:7– 18, which I attributed to (g) Belleville, Dunn, and Sterling. Belleville in particular has argued extensively for the commentary character of 2 Cor 3:7– 18. In her dissertation and subsequent articles, she has repeatedly made the case for the sequential nature of Paul’s exegesis in this pericope and his dependence upon Jewish exegetical traditions in developing his “line of argument” in this passage. In these general respects, I concur with her conclusions. There are, however, several argumentative and substantive gaps in Belleville’s work which make further investigation along these lines warranted.⁴²

 Hays, Echoes, 132.  Hays, Echoes, 140. Hays’ position echoes that of Furnish, II Corinthians, 243, who writes that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 “is not to be regarded as an exposition of Exod 34:29 ff. Much more, it is an exposition of Paul’s own reference to the ministry of the new covenant in v.6.” See also Ibid., 230: “The passage certainly has several midrashic features, and the concentration on Exod 34 is undeniable. However, it is important to observe that, so far, Paul has picked up only one main point from the story in Exodus: the dazzling splendor radiating from Moses’ face when he came down from Sinai with the law.”  Hays, Echoes, 132.  To enumerate the gaps in Belleville’s study briefly: First, in her treatment of various Jewish and Christian patterns of exegesis, Belleville does not cover a representative sampling of contemporaneous commentary traditions and does not handle the chronological and typological diversity of these traditions with the necessary nuance. Important formal parallels like the PseudoPhilonic homilies and the Platonic commentary tradition, which exerted a strong influence on Hellenistic Jewish commentaries in Alexandria, are not considered. Paul’s exegetical pattern in 2 Corinthians 3:7– 18 is not distinguished from other biblical patterns, such as the pattern found in John 6 (Reflections, 179 – 180). Most importantly, her treatment of Philonic patterns

16

1. Introduction

In this study, then, after an extensive comparative study of Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman commentaries, I will argue for a link between 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and the Hellenistic commentary tradition, broadly construed. In particular, I will suggest that a certain exegetical pattern often used by Philo of Alexandria to interpret secondary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary offers an important and underappreciated paradigm for illuminating the structure of 2 Cor 3:7– 18. It likewise provides a window into the kind of school exegesis that Paul might have studied in his advanced Jewish education and that he certainly encountered in Corinth.⁴³ This pattern of sequential exegesis used by Paul in 2 Corinthians, while likely stemming from the commentary tradition, is by no means limited to this genre in antiquity. It also appears in a surprisingly wide variety of literary contexts, including homilies, historiography, and religious treatises. Neither Belleville nor Dunn has attempted to demonstrate such a concrete link between Paul’s exegetical practice and the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition.

in the Allegorical Commentary does not differentiate Philo’s treatment of primary and secondary lemmata (Reflections, 180 – 181). Second, Belleville does not examine the presence of commentary traditions in non-commentary literature and give a sufficient explanation for how such traditions were used and transformed in other literary genres. Third, in terms of the theological content of this passage, Belleville gives short shrift to parallel Moses traditions in the Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls (five and four pages, respectively). Her engagement with the Mosesδόξα tradition in Philo is almost entirely limited to two passages, Mos. 2.69 – 70 and Spec. 1.270, both from the Exposition of the Law (Reflections, 31– 35). Although she does pepper her analysis with other passages, she does not engage their philosophical aspects nor look deeply into the place of Moses in the tabernacle elsewhere in Philo’s writings.  For a broad sketch of the contours of Paul’s Hellenistic and Palestinian Jewish education, see the important study of Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1991). For a reconstruction of Jewish education in Roman Alexandria, see Gregory E. Sterling, “‘The School of Sacred Laws’: the Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises,” VC 53 (1999): 148 – 64. It is likely that Hellenistic Jewish education was facilitated similarly in the synagogues and προσευχαί throughout the Diaspora. For a comprehensive treatment of the various functions of the Hellenistic synagogue, see Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Paul himself gives at least three autobiographical hints regarding his education. Setting aside the evidence of Acts 22:3, Paul boasts in Gal 1:14 that he was “advanced (προκόπτειν) in Judaism” beyond many of his peers, and “a zealot for the traditions of my fathers”; in Phil 3:4– 6, he reveals his training as a Pharisee and knowledge of Hebrew; and in Rom 1:14, Paul indicates some acquaintance with Greek and non-Greek culture and wisdom. The evidence for Paul’s knowledge and use of the Wisdom of Solomon in Romans gives clear grounds for arguing that by the time he penned that letter from Corinth he had encountered the Alexandrian philosophical and literary-critical Jewish traditions. Undoubtedly, he was acquainted with Hellenistic Palestinian commentary traditions even earlier.

1.2 Contributions

17

Acknowledging the link between Paul and the Jewish commentary tradition improves our reading of 2 Cor 3:7– 18 in several ways. First, by tracing the presence of similar commentary patterns in a variety of Jewish texts and distinguishing between the different forms and methods that they use, one can describe in a more nuanced way the relationship between exegesis, rhetoric, and narrative in Paul’s epistle. A comparison of Paul’s exegetical pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 with similar patterns in Philo, Hebrews, and Acts reveals its frequent use in literary digressions and opens up a new vista from which to consider the rhetorical unity of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6. A second contribution of this study will be to investigate Paul’s transformation of Moses-tabernacle traditions in light of important Philonic parallels. The scene of Moses entering the tabernacle is one of several homiletic topics shared by Paul and Philo, which presumably circulated in Jewish synagogues and prayer houses during the mid-first century of the Common Era.⁴⁴ I will suggest that while Paul and Philo both use Moses as a paradigm of ethical transformation, they differ significantly in their appropriation of this common Jewish tradition. Amongst the critical differences, Paul’s choice of Exodus 34 as his central Moses-tabernacle text (rather than the seemingly more popular Exodus 33) and his presentation of Moses in a multifaceted way as both foil and exemplar for Christian ministry set him apart from Philo and his Alexandrian colleagues.

 These shared topics have been studied most extensively in 1 Corinthians. See Gregory Sterling, “‘Wisdom among the Perfect’: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity,” NT 37/4 (1995): 355 – 384; Birger A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS 12; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973); Gerhard Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Korinther 15 (FRLANT 138; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); and the series of important essays by Richard A. Horsley, reprinted conveniently in one volume, Wisdom and Spiritual Transcendence at Corinth: Studies in First Corinthians (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2007). For a criticism of this position, see Dieter Zeller, “Die angebliche Enthusiastische oder spiritualistische Front in 1 Kor 15,” SPhA 13 (2001): 176 – 189. For evidence of Paul’s knowledge of the Alexandrian tradition, particularly the Wisdom of Solomon, see Jonathan A. Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human: Rethinking the Relationship between Wisdom of Solomon 13 – 15 and Romans 1.18 – 2.11,” NTS 57/2 (2011): 214– 237; and idem, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 152; Leiden: Brill, 2013). For his engagement with this tradition in 2 Corinthians in particular, see Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 25; and David E. Aune “Anthropological Duality in the Eschatology of 2 Corinthians 4:16 – 5:10,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Troels EngbergPedersen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 215 – 39.

18

1. Introduction

1.2.2 Paul and the Hellenistic Commentary Tradition The foregoing contributions relate to 2 Corinthians and Pauline exegesis. This monograph also advances, in a more indirect way, the study of ancient commentaries in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. While I have investigated the commentaries of this period largely to get some purchase on Paul’s exegetical poetics, Paul sheds some reciprocal light on our understanding of the range of influence of the scholastic commentary tradition. Textual commentary as a broader cultural and literary phenomenon has received renewed interest in recent years and continues to garner attention.⁴⁵ Seminal work on the Platonic commentary tradition has been done since the 1980s, sometimes for the sake of illuminating Jewish texts.⁴⁶ Homeric commentaries have also received renewed attention,⁴⁷ with several scholars suggesting that Alexandrian text-critical studies on Homer may similarly illuminate Jewish biblical scholarship in Alexandria.⁴⁸ In one recent study, Maren Niehoff reads the Letter of Aristeas, Demetrius, Aristobulus, and Philo—not to mention Philo’s anonymous opponents, such as the literalists and the radical allegorizers—in the light of Alexandrian Homeric scholars, particularly the celebrated Alexandrian text critic, Aristarchus Samothrax.

 As an indication of the ongoing import of this subject, one notes that the 2014– 15 Yale Workshop in Ancient Societies, convened jointly by Christina Kraus and Hindy Najman of the Classics and Religious Studies Departments, is focusing on the theme “What is Commentary?” in a number of cultural and linguistic registers.  John Dillon, “The Formal Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Exegesis,” in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a Commentary on the De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis (ed. D. Winston and idem; Brown Judaic Studies 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983), 77– 87. David Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises: A Review of Two Recent Studies and Some Additional Comments,” VC 38 (1984): 209 – 56; idem, “Further Observations on the Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises,” VC 41 (1987): 105 – 38. See also Maren Niehoff, “Did the Timaeus Create a Textual Community?” GRBS 47 (2007): 161– 191. For the philosophical commentary tradition more broadly, see I. Hadot, “Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l’Antiquité,” Antiquité Tardive 5 (1997): 169 – 76; and P. Hoffmann, “What Was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators,” in A Companion to Ancient Philosophy (ed. M. L. Gill and P. Pellegrin; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), 597– 622.  See, e. g., Donald A. Russell and David Konstan, eds., Heraclitus: Homeric Problems (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2005), esp. xxvi–xxvii.  Maren Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); and, more recently, eadem, ed., Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters (JSRC 16; Leiden: Brill, 2012). See also Adam Kamesar, “The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo of Alexandria and the D-Scholia to the Iliad,” GRBS 44 (2004): 163 – 81.

1.2 Contributions

19

Following this wave, in 2012, an entire volume of Dead Sea Discoveries was devoted to reviewing and advancing what we know about commentaries spanning a broad chronological and linguistic spectrum, from the Akkadian commentaries from the eighth century B.C.E. to Servius’s commentaries on Vergil’s Aeneid in the fourth century of the Common Era.⁴⁹ Absent from the DSD volume, in addition to Rabbinic and Gnostic commentaries, is a discussion of commentary practices in the New Testament itself, particularly in the letters of Paul, which self-consciously suggest a kinship with Alexandrian allegoresis (Gal 4:24). Viewed from this angle, a further contribution of this study is to ask what light Paul sheds on the commentary tradition. As I will suggest, Paul’s use of formal exegeses in several of his letters points to a broader literary phenomenon: the widespread practice of textual exegesis within more popular commentary and non-commentary texts, including homilies, historiography, and epistles— all of which I have grouped under the expansive theoretical label of “secondary-level exegesis.” In this study, I look closely at this phenomenon in a select group of early Jewish (Philo’s commentaries, the Damascus Document), Christian (John, Acts, Hebrews, the Pauline Letters), and Stoic (Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium) texts—a study that could easily have been expanded, in a different context, to consider authors like Cicero and Plutarch. Far from being limited to the rarified context of ancient schools, the creation and adaptation of formal exegesis to suit the needs of various other ancient genres suggests that commentary production was a fluid literary process which authors regularly redeployed to add depth and authority to their discourses.

1.2.3 Pauline Hermeneutics: The Ways of the Fox It remains now to say a brief word about 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and Pauline hermeneutics. This differs, as I understand it, from the task of describing Paul’s exegetical method from a purely historical horizon in a particular passage. Pauline hermeneutics may refer to (a) the synthetic task of trying to distill a global understanding or a comprehensive list of concerns motivating Paul’s exegetical activity; (b) the description or construction of a model of biblical exegesis rooted in Paul’s epistolary exegesis, to be of service in the church; or (c) some combination of these two.

 George G. Brooke, ed., DSD 19 (2012): 249 – 484. For a recent study of commentaries on classical texts, see Roy K. Gibson and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus, The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory (Mneumosyne Supplement 232; Leiden: Brill, 2002).

20

1. Introduction

The quest for Pauline hermeneutics is the third of the angles mentioned above and the furthest from the central aims of this enquiry. Nevertheless, since 2 Cor 3:7– 18 plays an important role in both ancient and modern constructions of Pauline (and indeed Christian) scriptural hermeneutics, I offer here some brief reflections, in light of this study, on the problems and possibilities of that project. To enter the quest for a Pauline scriptural hermeneutics is to set foot on an embattled field. Multiple conflicting and partially overlapping proposals continue to garner new adherents, and while occasional refinements are offered, there is little movement toward a consensus. For some, including many of the early fathers, Paul’s letter/spirit dichotomy in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 validates an allegorical or typological hermeneutic, in which Christ and Spirit are key.⁵⁰ Koch, in a modern reappropriation of this theory, suggests that the central theme of 2 Cor 3:12– 18 is ἡ ἀνάγνωσις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης.⁵¹ Others, following the pioneering work of C. H. Dodd, would suggest a more expansive apostolic kerygma (including the Christ event) as the hermeneutical lens through which Paul viewed the scriptures of Israel.⁵² Relatedly, Brevard Childs and Christopher Seitz suggest that Paul’s scriptural hermeneutics, in part as set out in 2 Corinthians 3, rest on a strong canonical consciousness, governed by the rule of faith.⁵³ For still others, the letter/spirit dichotomy, while not authorizing Hellenistic allegory tout court, provides an ethical imperative corresponding to the ecclesiological principle undergirding Pauline hermeneutics, which itself rests on the construction of a

 This view, reflected in the thought of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, all influenced by Neoplatonism, still has much to commend it. This view has been received and adapted in various ways by (among others) Robert M. Grant, The Letter and the Spirit (London: S.P.C.K, 1957), Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Contraversions 1; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), and Margaret Mitchell (Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, ix), who (drawing John Chrysostom into the conversation) proposes her “agonistic” paradigm of Pauline hermeneutics as a kind of “medial path between the rhetorical labels of ‘literal’ and ‘allegorical’ exegesis which are used as forms of self-identification and self-defense by early Christian authors, and all too often given a credulous acceptance and replication in contemporary accounts of ancient exegesis.”  Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 331.  Charles H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); Matthew W. Bates, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2012). Bates in particular draws on Justin Martyr as an inspiration.  Brevard S. Childs, The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Christopher R. Seitz, The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011). The key patristic forerunner here is Irenaeus of Lyons.

1.2 Contributions

21

narrative or story at the center of Paul’s theology and interpretation.⁵⁴ Finally, the view that God’s apocalyptic victory stands at the center of Paul’s eschatological hermeneutics has garnered increasing support in recent years.⁵⁵ These five positions do not begin to approach the full range of options on the embattled field. Neither is this the place to enter into a full-scale Forschungsbericht of recent constructions of Pauline hermeneutics. The sheer plurality of respectable and conflicting options suggests to this author that any new proposal ought to be presented with modesty.⁵⁶ Each of the above-stated positions has, so to speak, an angle on the truth, particularly when viewed as constructive, theological proposals, and it is not my object to deny that the Pauline hermeneutic core, insofar as it can be discovered, might prove valuable for a number of reasons. Such a hermeneutics, however, should be able to account for all of the data regarding Paul’s methods of exegesis and the textual and theoretical presuppositions that guide them. It should also take into account what can be known of the historical and geographical contingency of Paul’s extant epistles. Given the vast lacunae in the historical record, the difficulties of determining an absolute or even relative chronology of the letters,⁵⁷ and Paul’s seemingly free employment of a variety of exegetical patterns and methodologies within a relatively small data set, there would seem to be little hope of discovering any simple account of Paul’s scriptural hermeneutics that would prove intellectually satisfying with regard to the criteria set out above.⁵⁸

 Hays, Echoes, 157; and Wright, “The Plot, the Plan, and the Storied Worldview,” in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 456 – 537, both of whom focus on the related kerygmatic narratives of God’s righteousness and faithfulness.  For an apocalyptic core/coherence in Pauline hermeneutics, see Johan Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).  So Wayne A. Meeks, “Epilogue: The Christian Proteus,” in idem, ed., The Writings of Saint Paul (New York: Norton, 1972), 435 – 444, esp. 439: “The historian needs modesty; some things we shall not know, ever.”  Important studies in Pauline chronology, espousing a variety of views on the reliability of Acts, include: Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (London: SCM, 1984); John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (ed. Douglas Hare; Rev. ed.; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987 [1950]); Rainer Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994); Jerome MurphyO’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Gregory Tatum, New Chapters in the Life of Paul: The Relative Chronology of His Career (CBQMS 41; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2006).  For an earlier articulation of similar reservations, see Grant, The Letter and the Spirit, 52– 54: “Is it possible to find anything like a system underlying Paul’s ‘detached insights’? In other words, is it possible to tell what passages he would be likely to take literally and which he

22

1. Introduction

The alternative, however, is not to say nothing about Pauline hermeneutics. Many scholars have worked toward multi-faceted descriptions of Pauline hermeneutics, and some of these seem promising. Additionally, over the last half century, a wealth of new comparative data has emerged that allows us to contextualize Paul’s scriptural exegesis within the matrix of his own Judaism, in both its Palestinian (Semitic) and Hellenistic (Hellenophone, Diaspora) registers, better than has been possible in the past. This variegated corpus of Second Temple Jewish exegesis remains the single most important resource for constructing a historically grounded account of Pauline hermeneutics, even if this material cannot illuminate every aspect of Paul’s thought.⁵⁹ The first step is to continue the redescription of Pauline exegesis within its Jewish and Greco-Roman matrices, until the possibility of a broader consensus emerges. Reception history clearly also has a role to play, although its primary end may not so much be to establish Paul’s hermeneutics as to help chart its relation to later patristic developments.⁶⁰ Careful attention to the contingent character of Paul’s exegesis and the comparative body of Jewish commentary traditions suggests several things about Paul’s hermeneutics. First, given that determining the core of Paul’s theology has proved a difficult project, it would be miraculous indeed if the key to his scriptural hermeneutics were more readily forthcoming. As the Society of Biblical Literature Pauline Theology group discovered, trying to identify the center of Paul’s theology remains a thorny issue.⁶¹ The most compelling model to date, in my estimation, is still something like the coherence-contingency scheme posed by J. Christiaan Beker.⁶² Beker suggests that Paul’s thought can be construed as the result of a kind of dialogue between an apocalyptic “core” or “coherence,” and each letter’s contingency, i. e., the way in which the Gospel’s apoc-

would allegorize? … We cannot find any clear system in Paul’s thought, but he provides the point of departure for later gnostic and orthodox theories….”  See, in this regard, the work of Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004), who stresses the importance of Jewish traditions in reconstructing Pauline hermeneutics.  Reception history has been championed, in various ways, as a key to Pauline hermeneutics by several recent scholars, including Ulrich Luz, “Paulinische Theologie als Biblische Theologie,” in Mitte der Schrift: ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch: Texte des Berner Symposions vom 6 – 12 Januar 1985 (ed. Martin Klopfenstein, Ulrich Luz, and Shemaryahu Talmon; Judaica et Christiana; Bern: Peter Lang, 1987); Mitchell, Birth of Christian Hermeneutics; Bates, Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation.  Jouette M. Bassler, David M. Hay, and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds., Pauline Theology (4 vols.; SBLSymS 4; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).  Johan Christiaan Beker, “Recasting Pauline Theology: The Coherence-Contingency Scheme as Interpretive Model,” in Pauline Theology (ed. J. Bassler et al.), 1:15 – 24.

1.2 Contributions

23

alyptic message is particularized in Paul’s letter to any given church. Paul’s hermeneutics embody at least a similar degree of contingency and development in the course of his westward mission.⁶³ What we have in Paul, in other words, is not a single scriptural hermeneutic, harmoniously balanced (to borrow an analogy from art history) like a classical Greek kouros statue, but several still shots of a hermeneutics-in-formation, each marked by its contingency, resembling more the particularity of Hellenistic masterworks like the writhing “Laocoön” or the “Dying Gaul.”⁶⁴ The Pauline corpus (seven, thirteen, or fourteen letters) on this analogy, might be said to approximate the giant altar frieze at Pergamum. Despite frequently recurring elements and practices throughout the letters, Paul’s method is not static, but constantly moving and expanding.⁶⁵ Paul may be fruitfully contrasted, in this respect, with his contemporary Philo, who despite sharing Paul’s ability to employ a variety of methodologies (allegorical, literal, hypothetical logic, etc.) when reading the Jewish scriptures, nonetheless hews more closely than Paul to a single hermeneutics throughout his individual commentary series, focusing chiefly on the ethical and metaphysical significance of pentateuchal laws and narratives, wedding Moses at every point with Plato. This hermeneutical distinction between Philo and Paul may also be put in the following way. There is a famous, penetrating essay by the Russian Jewish

 Other scholars who stress the importance of Paul’s mission for the shape of his hermeneutics in various ways include J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 3, note 10 (see for older bibliography); Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?,” NovT 41 (1999): 124– 144; and Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans,” in idem, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 70 – 94.  The hermeneutical result of this reality is something similar to the model of “meaning-formation” (Sinnbildung) suggested by Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 210, in which Paul’s thought frequently outpaces traditional linguistic categories and thus expands them. See also the notion of “tectonic” concept formation in the recent study by Robert Masson, Without Metaphor, No Saving God: Theology After Cognitive Linguistics (Studies in Philosophical Theology 54; Leuven: Peeters, 2014).  Similarly Wagner, Heralds, 3, note 11, writes: “If ‘Paul’s theology’ is best conceptualized as an activity rather than as a relatively static set of convictions, then Paul’s interpretation of scripture should be understood along similar lines, as something best observed ‘in the wild’—that is, in the context of the dynamic, unfolding arguments of his letters.” I am, however, more sanguine than Wagner about the potential benefits of studying Paul’s individual species of exegesis for short periods “in captivity.”

24

1. Introduction

theorist Isaiah Berlin entitled “the Hedgehog and the Fox.”⁶⁶ In it, Berlin traces the temperamental difference between two of the greatest nineteenth-century Russian novelists: Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy. They, in turn, become archetypes of two intellectual dispositions. As an impetus for this bifurcation, Berlin takes as his starting point a pithy and gnomic chiasm from the Greek lyric poet Archilochus: πόλλα οἶδ’ ἀλώπηξ ἀλλ’ ἐχῖνος ἕν μέγα (“The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing”). For Berlin, the hedgehog, represented by Dostoevsky, is the quintessential prophet, whose life and work revolve almost singly around one great project, one solitary star; he relates “everything to a single central vision.”⁶⁷ He is transfixed on the universal and the transcendent. The fox, to the contrary, represented by Tolstoy, cannot seem to escape life’s myriad particularities, and thus explores his questions through a plurality of concrete stories and lives; “these last lead lives, perform acts, and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal, their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves….”⁶⁸ If one were to apply this model to Philo and Paul, both men, at the level of theological temperament, share the composure of the hedgehog. Each of them possesses a single great mission and message. For Philo, this is the marriage of Mosaic law and Platonic philosophy, and the defense of the universal horizon of Judaism’s teaching as an ethical model for the Roman world. Nearly all the particularities of the Pentateuch are oriented toward this project. For Paul, the single framework is the desire to spread the Gospel among the Gentiles, to share the “surpassing greatness of knowing Christ,” the eschatological Messiah, on account of which every other former pursuit or accomplishment has become to him σκύβαλα (Phil 3:8). Paul viewed his mission in terms similar to those of the prophets Jeremiah (2 Cor 3:1– 6) and Isaiah (Romans 9 – 11) and saw himself as a divinely appointed apostolic actor on the stage of salvation history.⁶⁹ When it comes to scriptural hermeneutics, however, Philo and Paul temperamentally part ways. Philo, following his innate tendencies, employs a relatively uniform hermeneutic grounded in a theory of Mosaic inspiration, which harmonizes the living laws of the Patriarchs with the specific pentateuchal laws that follow. This is neatly explicated in the form of running sequential biblical com-

 Isaiah Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History (New York: New American Library, 1957).  Ibid., 7.  Ibid., 8.  For Isaiah, see Wagner, Heralds.

1.2 Contributions

25

mentaries, employing a Middle-Platonic form of allegoresis. Although some shifts in method and perceived audience can be delineated between the three commentary series, one finds (with rare exceptions) a common set of hermeneutical principles at play. One does not get a similar impression from Paul’s scriptural exegeses in his letters. As numerous historical studies have suggested, scripture in the epistles is subjected to the contingent demands of the various Pauline and non-Pauline churches to which they are addressed. Some important letters, such as 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Colossians, contain few or no explicit formula citations of scripture. Where scriptural texts are cited and interpreted by Paul, a variety of patterns and methods are used, sometimes even within the same letter.⁷⁰ At the very least, one can say that scriptural interpretation does not provide the sole vehicle for Paul’s exposition of the Gospel, even if everything he does say might find a point of reference within scripture’s coordinates. Furthermore, as I will argue in this study, Paul’s hermeneutical horizons were not fixed, but grew and expanded as Paul moved further west and encountered other Jewish communities, their scriptures, and their exegetical practices— a phenomenon that Daniel Schwartz once described, in personal communication, as the “diasporization” of Paul’s thought. Given such a methodological flexibility in light of the exigencies of his missionary office, one might well conclude that Paul—and, if Luke is to be trusted, the Pharisee ‫—שאול‬was not a hermeneutical hedgehog, but a fox.⁷¹ This is the Protean Paul who could be all things to all people,⁷² who while insisting that the Corinthians learn the meaning of the saying “nothing beyond what is written” (1 Cor 4:6) in that very same correspondence proceeds to stretch—in a variety of directions and at times almost to the breaking point—the literal sense of holy writ, drawing on a whole host of Jewish methods and traditions in an exegetical tour de force. If Pauline exegesis is not a “helter-skelter,” scatter-shot constellation, neither is it a fixed point, but looks something more like a vector, whose rough origins and directionality are known, but whose terminal point—like the geographical extent of his westward mission—remains tantalizing to speculate about but historically unknown. Pin-

 Contrast, for example, the sustained, sequential exegesis of a single Pentateuchal verse in Rom 4:3 – 5:1 with the rapid-fire prophetic catena of Rom 9:24– 33.  I adduce the paronomasia between ‫שאול‬, “Saul” and ‫שועל‬, “fox” here playfully. For the speculative proposal that such a play underlies Jesus’ “fox” logion to Herod in Luke 13:32, see Werner Grimm, “Eschatologischer Saul Wider Eschatologischen David,” NovT 15 (1973): 114– 33, esp. 116; and Otto Betz, “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu,” NovT 6 (1963): 20 – 48, 42.  The image is drawn from Meeks, “Christian Proteus,” 438.

26

1. Introduction

ning down the hermeneutics of such a wily figure may prove impossible, but like Odysseus, one must try. It is hoped, at least, that this current work offers a useful study in one of the hermeneutical faces of Paul, in this case, a glorious and transformed one, without guile or dissimulation.

1.3 Overview This book is divided into three parts. In “Part One: Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 34 in Light of the Undisputed Epistles” (chapters one and two), I set out the problem I seek to address, namely, the “difficulty” (2 Peter 3:16) of discerning the form and function of Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. The present chapter has introduced the problem of 2 Cor 3:7– 18, from a variety of angles, via the secondary literature. Chapter two illuminates the puzzle from a second, synchronic vista. There, I will illustrate the unique features of Paul’s pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 by comparing it with three other examples of sustained exegesis in Paul’s letters. In his magisterial commentary, Windisch notes, but does not explore, the connection between Paul’s exegesis of Exodus and four other “midraschartige Stücke” among the undisputed letters. These exegetical parallels include: “1 Cor 10:1 ff., Gal 3:6 ff., Gal 4:21 ff., and Rom 4:9 ff.”⁷³ A comparison of the patterns of exegesis employed by Paul in these passages reveals that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 exhibits a pattern virtually unique among the Pauline letters.⁷⁴ A cursory glance at the margins of Nestle-Aland 27 suggests that Paul is working sequentially through Exod 34:[27]29 – 35 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. This impression of Paul’s close adherence to the text of Exodus is confirmed upon closer scrutiny. Having analyzed Paul’s exegetical pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 in Part One, in “Part Two: Secondary-Level Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries, Homilies, and Other Exegetical Writings” (chapters three and four), I survey similar exegetical patterns elsewhere in Hellenistic commentaries, beginning with Philo of Alexandria’s three commentary series. Next, I turn to the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary and several types of pesharim found at Qumran. On the basis of

 Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 112; the complete list also includes Heb 4:7– 11, 6:20 – 7:28; and Barnabas 6:8 – 19, 11:6 – 11, 12:5 – 7, and 13. In the authentic Pauline passages alone, Windisch does not specify the ends of the pericopes.  Hays, Echoes, 132: “Formally, 2 Cor. 3:7– 18 resembles 1 Cor 10:1– 13—an allusive homily based on biblical incidents—more closely than it resembles passages such as Romans 4….” I think that Hays rightly points to the exegetical similarities between these passages (and there are more than he mentions), but also omits significant dissimilarities.

1.3 Overview

27

these studies, I suggest that the closest formal and substantive parallels to 2 Cor 3:7– 18 are found among Philo of Alexandria’s interpretations of secondary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary. Chapter four looks at the redeployment of commentary traditions in nonscholastic texts, including Jewish and Christian homilies, Gospels, treatises, and Greco-Roman letters. By surveying exegetical patterns in “homiletic” commentaries, including early Christian and Jewish homilies from the New Testament (Hebrews, Acts, Luke, and John) and the Pseudo-Philonic homilies De Jona and De Sampsone, I conclude that while Paul may have known the exegetical pattern used in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 from his advanced Jewish education, the practice of incorporating secondary-level exegesis was widespread even in non-commentary texts. I go on to confirm this hypothesis by demonstrating the use of similar exegetical patterns and textual authority in the Damascus Document and Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. Having completed this comparative study, in “Part Three: Lifting the Veil: The Rhetorical Function and Theological Purpose of Paul’s Exodus Exegesis” (chapters five and six), I ask how the investigation of Part Two illuminates the function and theology of 2 Cor 3:7– 18 in its epistolary context. In chapter five, I begin with the redactional question that has frequently occupied exegetes of 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and ask what ramifications my study might have for establishing the rhetorical unity or disunity of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6. Noting that Philo’s exegeses of secondary lemmata often present literary “digressions,” drawing the discourse away from the main subject of the allegorical treatise and sometimes significantly altering the theme of the discussion, I suggest that Paul’s exegesis function in a similar way in 2 Corinthians.⁷⁵ Primarily through comparing 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and its epistolary frame with similar examples of secondary-level exegesis in commentaries (Philo), homilies (Hebrews), treatises (the Damascus Document), and Greco-Roman letters (Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium), I argue for the rhetorical unity of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6. To shore up this conclusion, I look closely at the importance of the Jewish theme of “covenant renewal” in both Paul’s apologetic frame (2 Cor 3:6) and in the exegesis itself (2 Cor 3:7– 18) and argue that Paul’s rivals in Corinth are best construed as Hellenistic Jewish Christian ministers.

 For an important discussion of literary unity in antiquity, particularly in the case of Plato’s Phaedrus, see Malcom Heath, “The Unity of Plato’s Phaedrus,” OSAP 7 (1989): 151– 73; and ‘The Unity of Plato’s Phaedrus: a Postscript,’ Ibid., 189 – 91, who suggests, among other things, that the ancient tolerance for disunity of themes was more flexible than a modern reader would generally accept.

28

1. Introduction

Taking the identity of Paul’s opponents as a cue, in chapter six I turn to his critique and appropriation of the Hellenistic-Jewish Moses tradition. Paul has creatively engaged his rivals’ use of such traditions. Instead of focusing on Exodus 33 (like Philo so often does), Paul focuses instead on Exodus 34 and finds there a portrait of Moses who is both foil and exemplar of his own ministry, a figure of the spiritual reading of the Old Testament, and a paradigm of ethical transformation. Here, I contrast Paul’s exegesis with Philo’s interpretation of Exod 33:7– 11 and Exod 33:12– 23 as secondary lemmata within the Allegorical Commentary, noting as well the Christological appropriation of these traditions in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moses’ parrhēsia, priesthood, and vision of God’s image and glory constitute key themes in a shared Jewish tradition, which Paul uniquely adapts to suit the particularities of his gospel.

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke” 2.1 Introduction Although Paul never wrote a biblical commentary per se, there is little question that Israel’s scriptures—along with the Jewish interpretive traditions that traveled inextricably with them through synagogue preaching and rabbinic teaching—were one of the most formative influences on his thought. Paul’s revelatory experience of the risen Jesus outside of Damascus alone should be ranked more highly.¹ Throughout Paul’s Hauptbriefe, we find time and again not only a rehearsal of the apocalyptic kerygma, but also a deep and sustained attention to the body of Scripture as an essential part of Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel.² Hence, it is natural that many studies of Pauline exegesis have sought also to locate the unifying characteristics of his biblical interpretation. Such a quest, however important, remains challenging on several fronts. As I argued in the previous chapter, any attempt to articulate a Pauline hermeneutics must also take into account the full diversity of Paul’s treatments of scripture, as well as the traditional nature of his exegetical practice. As a contribution to this task of re-historicizing Paul’s exegesis, the current chapter focuses on the diversity of exegetical patterns within Paul’s corpus. It aims to illustrate Paul’s unique pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 through a comparison of this passage with several other major exegetical sections of Paul’s letters. Such a demonstration will lay the foundation for further discussion of Paul’s knowledge and use of Hellenistic commentary methods and traditions. Paul’s employment of a variety of exegetical patterns and methods falls in line with what we know, on a broader scale, from the ancient commentary literature. The Essene pesharim, for instance, which seem uniformly rooted in sectar-

 To Paul’s first revelation (Gal 1:16, 1 Cor 15:8) we might also add the seemingly ongoing visions and other mystical experiences granted to Paul, such as those reported in Gal 2:2 and 2 Cor 12:1– 10. While it is not impossible that 2 Cor 12:1– 10 refers to Paul’s experience on Damascus road as some have claimed, more convincing is the position of Furnish, II Corinthians, 544, that Paul’s rapture into the third heaven happened “not long after his escape from Damascus … during a part of his apostolic career about which he himself is otherwise silent.”  For the confluence of the themes of kerygma and scriptures undergirding Paul’s Gospel, see 1 Cor 15:1– 4. This dual emphasis on the missional and scriptural sides of Paul’s theology has been emphasized, inter alios, by Wagner, Heralds, 1.

30

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

ian eschatology and halakhah, evince formal diversity between the continuous and thematic varieties. This recognition of formal and methodological diversity within Paul’s corpus garners even stronger support from a comparison with Paul’s slightly older Jewish contemporary, Philo of Alexandria. While Philo is best known for his Allegorical Commentary, he also composed two other commentary series on the Pentateuch, the Questions and Answers and the Exposition of the Law.³ In each of these series, Philo follows a perceptibly different exegetical pattern and method.⁴ The fact that one Jewish author in the first century C.E., despite his more programmatic hermeneutical perspective, was capable of appropriating and employing a variety of exegetical patterns and methods provides sufficient grounds for arguing that Paul would also have been capable of “altering” his rhetorical/exegetical voice.⁵ This was all the more necessary in Paul’s case if, as seems likely, he is navigating Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Jewish traditions.⁶

2.1.1 Patterns of Exegesis Before proceeding to an analysis of the Pauline texts, it is necessary to define what is meant by a “pattern of exegesis.” In inquiring about Paul’s exegetical pattern, I mean to answer two basic questions: (1) How does Paul explicitly introduce and control (or fail to control) scriptural texts in each pericope? (2) How do these scriptural intertexts themselves implicitly guide (or fail to guide) Paul’s discourse? In my analysis of each passage, I will offer a map of Paul’s exegetical structure, attending closely to his use of introductory formulae (or lack thereof) and

 For a systematic introduction to these series and good recent bibliography, see chapter three.  For a discussion of a rather unique instance of non-allegorical Philonic exegesis in a fragmentary apologetic work preserved by Eusebius, see Michael Cover, “Reconceptualizing Conquest: Colonial Narratives and Philo’s Roman Accuser in the Hypothetica,” SPhA 22 (2010): 183 – 207.  Gal 4:20; see Mitchell, Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, 116, note 6: “Gregory [of Nyssa] here makes a neat play of his own, turning Paul’s expressed wish to ‘alter his voice’ (allaxai tēn phōnēn) from harsh to soft, into Paul’s ‘alternating his language’ of terms for non-literal interpretation.”  The literature on the Vorlage of Paul’s Bible(s) is vast; see Wagner, Heralds and Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004) for bibliography. Paul’s knowledge of a proto-MT Hebrew version is supported, among other places, by his allusion to Genesis 3 in Rom 16:20. See Jan Dochhorn, “Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit: eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm 16,20a,” ZNW 98 (2007): 189 – 212.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

31

the relation of his citations or paraphrases to the Göttingen Septuagint. In a second pass, I will ask whether a given Pauline interpretation shows a close structural or linguistic dependence on one specific Septuagintal text, of which it can be considered in some sense an exegesis. Presuming that at least one controlling lemma is discovered, I will then investigate the exact way in which Paul is guided by the Septuagint in his argument. The answers to these questions define what I mean by a “pattern of exegesis.” The basic procedure of this study, then, is to work from Paul outward—that is, both forward and backward in time—not beginning with a comprehensive survey of Hellenistic commentary traditions in their Platonic, Jewish, and Early Christian forms, but letting the Pauline letters themselves determine which texts provide relevant comparanda. As will become apparent, in all four of these case studies Paul follows a sequential principle, which gives rise to one of the primary descriptive categories of this study: “(implicit) sequential exegesis.” What will also become apparent is that these and other instances of “sequential exegesis” also permit a good deal of variety; hence the task of the present chapter is also to distinguish these sub-patterns from one another. Each of the following analyses will be divided into four standard sections: (1.) The Exegetical Pattern; (2.) The Pericope; (3.) Explicit Pauline Controls on the OT Texts; and (4.) Implicit OT Controls on Paul’s Argumentation. By presenting the pattern first, I demonstrate clearly the way each exegetical passage echoes and repeats key phrases from its scriptural lemma or lemmata. The subsequent sections (2.–4.) then demonstrate the analysis which led to the foregoing pattern. With these introductory remarks, I now turn to the first pair of Windisch’s “midraschartige Stücke,” Galatians 4:21– 5:1 and Rom 4:3 – 25, and their exegeses of the Abraham cycle of Genesis.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1 Alongside 2 Cor 3:7– 18, Gal 4:21– 5:1 is one of the most complex exegetical passages in the Pauline corpus. This pericope serves as a central junction for the confluence of several argumentative veins, including Paul’s views on the covenants,⁷ the law/circumcision,⁸ and the “Israel question,”⁹ not to mention the

 The question of just which covenants Paul is talking about remains an open question; for the standard position that Paul has in view here the old and new covenants of 2 Cor 3:6, 14, see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia;

32

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

subject of this current investigation, Paul’s exegesis of the Septuagint.¹⁰ In analyzing the pattern of exegesis in Gal 4:21– 5:1, I cannot hope to treat all the theological issues that will necessarily be unearthed as I dig around with my spade in the Pauline dirt, trying to get at the formal roots of his exegetical wrangling with scripture. When my line of argument depends upon one of these larger issues, I will present the various opinions on the subject, but the focus of this study will remain on Paul’s patterns of exegesis. Of particular relevance for the current project in each of these treatments is Section (4.) “Implicit OT controls on Paul’s Argumentation.” With respect to Gal 4:21– 5:1, I will argue that Gal 4:22 alludes neither to the entire Abraham narrative from Genesis 12– 21,¹¹ nor to a combination of key chapters (such as Genesis 16, 18, and 21),¹² nor even to Gen 21:1– 10,¹³ but to only two verses, Gen 21:9 – 10. As such, the textual focus of Paul’s exegesis is much tighter than is usually acknowledged. His pattern in this passage can be fruitfully compared with the kind of dense, lemmatic school exegesis found in Philo’s Allegorical Commentary. In the case of Gal 4:21– 5:1, I also include a fifth section, (5.) “A Narratological

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 253, and a long tradition of German scholarship. Others, like Hays, Echoes, 114, thinking perhaps of the plural Jewish covenants of Rom 9:4 instead of the covenantal dichotomy of 2 Corinthians 3, nuance this view a little and argue instead that the covenants of Abraham and Moses are here contrasted, though the former clearly has a Christological telos. Yet again, J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 454– 57, argues that Paul is in fact thinking primarily of two rival versions of the new covenant, two Christian missions which have in essence “split” the covenant of Abraham. Still others, apparently, have idiosyncratically spoken of a “Hagar covenant” contrasted with an “Abraham covenant” (Martyn, Galatians, 436).  See, recently, Matthew Thiessen, Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Early Judaism and Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).  The essential question on this front is the relation of Gal 4:21– 31 and Romans 9 – 11. For a recent treatment, see Michael Wolter, “Das Israelproblem nach Gal 4,21– 31 und Röm 9 – 11,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 107 (2010): 1– 30.  For the relationship between Platonizing allegory and apocalyptic eschatology in this pericope, see Michael Cover, “‘Now and Above; Then and Now’ (Gal. 4:21– 31): Platonizing and Apocalyptic Polarities in Paul’s Eschatology,” in Galatians and Christian Theology (ed. M. W. Elliot, S. J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and J. Frederick; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 220 – 29.  Pace Martyn, Galatians, 432.  Pace Gerhard Sellin, “Hagar und Sara: religionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Schriftallegorese Gal 4,21– 31,” in idem, Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag (BZNW 100; Berlin/New York: 1999), 59 – 84, esp. 60; Betz, Galatians, 241; Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 9.  Pace Charles Kingsley Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher; Tübingen: Mohr, 1976), 1– 16.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

33

Confirmation: Graphē as Sarah, Paul as God.” This excursus, which is ancillary to the main argument, strengthens the conclusion of the historical-critical study by approaching the question of Paul’s scriptural focus through the theoretical lens of narratology.

2.2.1 The Exegetical Pattern In Gal 4:21– 5:1, Paul’s argument echoes or paraphrases the scriptural text of Gen 21:9 – 10 at several key points. The pattern which emerges from a close analysis of Paul’s exegesis is as follows (Table 2.1): Table 2.1: Exegetical Pattern of Gal 4:21 – 5:1 Gal : –  Gal : –  Gal : Gal : Gal : Gal : – :

Diatribal question and paraphrase drawing on Gen : –  First allegorical interpretation of Gen : – //Gal :. Secondary lemma, LXX Isa : Allegorizing paraphrase of Gen :b//Gal : (διώκειν = παίζειν) Modified citation of Gen : Second allegorical interpretation of Gen ://Gal : and epistolary transition

2.2.2 The Pericope Many scholars bracket Gal 4:21– 31 as a unit, ascribing Gal 5:1 to the beginning of the next paraenetic section.¹⁴ While this may be the case, the presence of two major Stichwörter drawn from Gal 4:21– 31 (ἐλευθερία, δουλεία) in Gal 5:1 give grounds for initially including this verse, even if in the end it is judged to be extraneous to Paul’s pattern of exegesis.

 For the bracketing of 4:21– 31, see esp. Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 60, note 1: “4,21 [stellt] die Einleitung zu einem Schriftbeweis [dar], der sein Ziel in 4,31 erreicht hat;” Betz, Galatians, 22, who sees 4:31 as a “summary of the argument of 4:21– 30 and of the whole probatio of 3:1– 4:30 (31)”; Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 1; and Hays, Echoes, 105, who accepts this division without comment. On the other hand, Martyn, Galatians, 432, and Michael Bachman, “Die andere Frau: synchrone und diachrone Beobachtungen zu Gal 4,21– 5,1,” in idem, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Aposteles Paulus (NTOA 40; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 127– 58, esp. 141, consider Gal 5:1 as a part of the pericope.

34

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

The delimitation of Gal 4:31– 5:1 as an independent unit may appear too short to others, particularly as this so-called “second exegetical section” is clearly related to the “first” (Gal 3:6 – 4:7), which also deals with Abraham.¹⁵ Windisch considered “Gal 3:6 ff.” among Paul’s “midraschartige Stücke” and several more recent studies have taken the view that Paul’s second exegetical section is in fact a continuation of the previous Abraham argument.¹⁶ Michael Wolter has even likened Paul’s use of the term ἐπαγγελία (3:14, 16, 17, 18a, 18b, 21, 22; 4:23, 28) in this section to the resumption of a scarlet thread (“als roter Faden”) which is woven intricately through the earlier section and on which these exegeses of Genesis, Deuteronomy, and other biblical texts, like a string of pearls, are hung.¹⁷ The recipients of Galatians, hearing Gal 4:21– 5:1, would undoubtedly have the earlier stories about Abraham still echoing in their ears. Paul himself stirs up the intertextual pool, citing Gen 15:6 and Gen 12:3 in Gal 3:6 – 9 and Gen 13:5 in Gal 3:15 – 18, and alluding to various other passages from the biblical Abraham narrative as well. Granting all this, studying the pattern of exegesis in Gal 4:21– 5:1 in its own right remains a legitimate task. Although Gal 4:21– 5:1 is thematically and narratively related to the first exegetical section, the length of the exegesis (Gal 4:21– 31; cf. Gal 3:6 – 9), the form of the secondary citations (e. g. one extended citation of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27; cf. the catena of short citations at Gal 3:10 – 14), and multiple allegorical interpretations (Gal 4:24– 28) all suggest that Paul is using scripture differently here than in the preceding sections. From the perspective of rhetorical analysis, moreover, the rather abrupt way in which this pericope is included warrants its investigation as an individual unit. In Schlier’s words, Paul introduces this final probatio “Ohne Übergang, ‘recht energisch in mediam rem hineinführend’ (Sieffert) und mit einer Eindringlichkeit, die an 31 errinert.”¹⁸ The reader, having left exegetical argumentation for the moment, is suddenly plunged back into the cold water for one last sobering dunk. While this need

 Martyn, Galatians, 432– 33, labels and partitions these two sections thus. Indeed, delimiting the first section is fraught with more problems than the second. In contrast to Martyn, Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 3, treats only Gal 3:6– 29. Betz, Galatians, 19 – 20, sees Gal 3:6– 14 and 3:15 – 18 as two independent proofs, the first “from Scripture,” the second “from common human practice.” These are followed by a digression (Gal 3:19 – 25) and a “fourth argument from Christian Tradition” (Gal 3:26 – 4:11). To adequately address this section, then, would require nothing less than a full-scale rhetorical analysis of Galatians, which far exceeds the scope of this project.  See, e. g., Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 9: “Der Text ist eng mit der paulinischen Argumentation in 3,6 – 4, 11 verknüpft.” I justify bypassing this first section (Gal 3:6 – 14 [18]) in part because of the similar treatment of the same primary biblical lemma in Romans 4.  Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 6, 9.  Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1951), 153.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

35

not signify that Gal 4:21– 5:1 was in fact an “after-thought,”¹⁹ it does demonstrate that Paul’s surprising return to scripture demarcates a unique rhetorical unit in his letter. As Betz and others have pointed out, Paul here shifts both his text and his mode of argumentation, not merely providing an argument from the law but pulling the reader into the dock to be questioned by the personified Scripture herself.²⁰ This unique method of argumentation (question and answer, which Betz likens to “Hellenistic diatribe literature”)²¹ provides yet another warrant for treating Gal 4:21– 5:1 as an independent unit.

2.2.3 Explicit Pauline Controls In Galatians 4:21– 31, Paul’s pattern of exegesis follows three explicit citation formulae (Gal 4:22, 27, 30) and one methodological formula (Gal 4:24a). These exegetical controls, however, are not the only governing factors in the text; there is a secondary set of controls by which Paul links his exegesis to his Galatian readers and hearers, namely, the first- and second-person plural references (Gal 4:21, 4:28, 4:31, 5:1bis). While scholarly views on how to balance these two sets of Pauline controls vary, I agree with the statement of Gerhard Sellin: “Während also V. 21.28a.31 die kommunikative Leserlenkung bewerkstelligen, regeln die Zitationsformeln in V. 22.27.30, aber auch die allegoretische Deuteformel in V. 24 die Beziehung der Ebenen von Objekt- und Metatexten im Sinne von Text und Kommentar” (emphasis added).²² Paul governs the pattern of his exegesis primarily through the structural formulae. ²³ §1. Gal 4:21– 23 Although Gal 4:21 formally belongs to this section, Paul’s exegesis begins with a standard citation formula, γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι, in Gal 4:22. This is similar to the formula used at Gal 4:27 (γέγραπται γάρ). Of Paul’s

 So Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1964 [1921]), 252: “It had apparently only just occurred to the apostle that he might reach his readers by such an argument as that which follows.” See Schlier, Brief an die Galater, 153, who quotes Oepke’s similar judgment that the section was “erst nachträglich eingefallen.”  So Schlier, Brief, 153: “der Apostel [fordert] (v.21) seine Leser auf—urget quasi praesens (Bengel)—ihm aus dem ‘Gesetz’, der Tora, Rede und Antwort zu stehen.”  Betz, Galatians, 241. See likewise the important studies of Abraham Malherbe, Stanley Stowers, and Rudolf Bultmann, discussed in the treatment of Romans below.  Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 61.  For a contrary construction of Paul’s exegetical pattern, which puts more structural weight on the “Leserlenkung,” see Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 8 – 17.

36

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

thirty-three uses of this introductory formula, only here does it introduce a paraphrase rather than a citation.²⁴ This use of γέγραπται to introduce a paraphrase, which itself already contains inchoate interpretative polarities (such as παιδίσκη/ἐλευθέρα) keyed for further exegetical expansion, is unparalleled in Paul’s undisputed letters but finds a fascinating analogue in the later Tannaitic work, Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishmael. In his important hermeneutical study of this and other Ishmaelian texts, Azzan Yadin notes that ‫הכתוב‬, the rabbinic counterpart to Paul’s personified ἡ γράφη, functions as a scriptural interpreter alongside rabbinic voices. ‫הכתוב‬ may introduce a paraphrase in order to compare two things, “distinguish between distinct legal cases,” and draw “analogies” in the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim, just as Paul here distinguishes between Abraham’s two sons.²⁵ Paul’s use of a paraphrase raises two questions: (1) where (in Paul’s text) does the paraphrase end? And (2) what OT text(s) are being drawn on for the paraphrase? Scholars are divided regarding the extent of the paraphrase. While Sellin may represent the majority in arguing that the paraphrase extends over 4:22– 23, Michael Wolter has recently argued that Gal 4:22 and 4:23 begin two different exegetical “tracks” in this pericope, one of which is allegorical, the other of which is not.²⁶ I suggest a mediating solution: the primary paraphrase ends at 4:22; this is expanded by a second paraphrastic comment in 4:23. Paul’s use of the disjunction ἀλλά provides one basis for discerning a formal division between Gal 4:22 and 23. In both diatribe and scholarly commentary, ἀλλά often introduces some new information into the argument.²⁷ Paul uses ἀλλά later on in his allegory to introduce another paraphrastic comment in Gal 4:29. With Wolter, then, I recognize a formal division between these two verses; with Sellin, I consider

 1 Cor 2:9 is a possible exception. Cf. Johannes Weiß, Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 58 – 59, who seems inclined to take this verse (after Origen and Ambrosiaster) as a citation from a lost pseudepigraphical work: “Es ist auch kein Grund, zu bezweifeln, daß Paulus hier ein wörtliches Zitat bringt, nach seiner Meinung aus einer heiligen prophetischen Schrift, die er gerade so zitiert, wie altt. Schriften.”  Azzan Yadin, Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Divinations; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004), 11– 33, esp. 27– 28. The roles of Paul’s ἡ γράφη and Rabbi Ishmael’s ‫ הכתוב‬are not identical, at least according to Yadin’s analysis. In the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim, for example, ‫ הכתוב‬never cites scripture (cf. Gal 4:30).  Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 61; Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 11.  Martyn, Galatians, 434, likewise stresses the “adversative” function of ἀλλά, but to a different end (though not prohibitive of my reading). Betz, Galatians, 21, is probably wrong, however, when he argues (contra Wolter and Sellin) that 4:23 begins the allegorical interpretation; as Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 64, rightly observes, 4:22 and 23 belong together as a strophic pair, “streng durch Parallelismen konstruiert.”

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

37

them both part of the lemma, which is given allegorical interpretation in Gal 4:24– 31. I will return to the second of these two questions (which scriptural text or texts are paraphrased) in section 2.2.4. In the meantime, the discussion thus far has revealed that Paul’s first formula presents as many questions as it does answers regarding the structure of his allegory and his interpretive focus in this passage. §2. Gal 4:24 – 26 Paul’s first and only allegorical formula, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, divides his foregoing paraphrastic introduction and his allegorical exposition of that “text.” Paul attends first to the two mothers, who provide the binary opposition for distinguishing the sons in 4:22. He likens the two mothers to two covenants. He then identifies Hagar as the covenant from Mount Sinai (4:24), as Mount Sinai itself (4:25a), and places both of these allegorical identifications “in the same column” (συστοιχεῖ) as Jerusalem now (4:25b). The three identifications of Hagar in 4:25b (Jerusalem now, in slavery, with her children) are given one-for-one counterpoint by three descriptions of the Sarah (Jerusalem above, free woman, our mother), who is never explicitly named. §3. Gal 4:27– 29 Paul’s second scriptural citation formula, γέγραπται γάρ, introduces an unaltered citation (LXX Isa 54:1) rather than a paraphrase of a scriptural text (cf. Gal 4:22). As in (§1) Gal 4:22– 23, however, the citation formula poses some major challenges to the interpreter. First, what relation does the Isaiah citation in Gal 4:27 bear to the preceding paraphrase in (§1) Gal 4:22– 23 and allegory in (§2) Gal 4:24– 26? Does it introduce an entirely new section or is it structurally linked to what precedes? Second, does the Isaiah citation stand as a concatenated primary lemma to the Pentateuchal paraphrase in (§1) Gal 4:22– 23, or is it a scriptural extension of the allegorical comments of (§2) Gal 4:24– 26, and thereby a secondary lemma? Third, what relation does Gal 4:27 bear to the following two verses?²⁸ As regards (1) the first question, the citation from LXX Isaiah relates lexically and thematically to both Gal 4:25 – 26 and 28. Paul’s use of τέκνα in Gal 4:25 anticipates Isa 54:1 (πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου) and sounds in the previous verse

 In posing the questions this way, I pass over the question of the relationship of Gal 4:27 to Paul’s argument outside the allegory. Susan Eastman, “Children of the Free Woman,” in Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 127– 60, addresses the relationship between the appearance of ὠδίνειν in Isa 54:1 (Gal 4:27) and the appearance of that same verb in Paul’s description of his own apostolic labors in Gal 4:19.

38

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

as a kind of Vorklang. ²⁹ The image of the barren woman from Isa 54:1 recalls both “Jerusalem above” and Sarah, the “free woman” in Gal 4:26.³⁰ τέκνα then occurs again in Gal 4:28, linking Gal 4:25 – 28 as a thematic unit. Paul thus echoes Isa 54:1 both before and after its citation, suggesting that (§2) Gal 4:24– 26 and (§3) Gal 4:27– 29 belong together as two parts of Paul’s allegorical commentary on Gal 4:22– 23. Recognizing the integral nature of (§2) Gal 4:24– 26 and (§3) Gal 4:27– 29 helps to answer (2) the second question, namely, the relationship of Isa 54:1 to the paraphrased text of (§1) Gal 4:22– 23. As part of the allegorical interpretation, Isa 54:1 constitutes a secondary lemma. The implicit tradition-historical association of Sarah and Jerusalem confirms the secondary status of the Isaianic text. The Isaiah quotation forms a kind of “Schlußstein,”³¹ or better, a hinge verse within the foregoing allegory, pulling together multiple elements from Paul’s exegesis, particularly the relationship between matriarch and city. Regarding the subsequent two verses, Gerhard Sellin detects a section division after Gal 4:27.³² However, Gal 4:28, while difficult to place definitively, belongs quite naturally with this section as well. Gal 4:27 is a center of gravity, while Gal 4:28, like its formal parallel in Gal 4:31 (note the shared use of the vocative ἀδελφοί in both verses), furnishes a conclusion to this allegorical subsection. Gal 4:29, however, does not comment directly on Isa 54:1; the commentary has moved on. This study illustrates that technical formulae cannot sufficiently decode the structure of Paul’s exegesis. Taking a cue from κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα in Gal 4:28, Paul turns the focus of his allegory in Gal 4:29 from the two mothers and their many children (see §2. Gal 4:24– 28) to the specific relationship between Abraham’s “two sons.” By shifting from the neuter plural τέκνα to the masculine singular polarity (ὁ κατὰ σάρκα … τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα), Paul leaves be-

 I have borrowed this fine German word from Hays, Echoes, 108, though he uses it in a different context.  The link between Sarah and Jerusalem is present in the fifth-century anthology of rabbinic homilies, Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (20.1), but may be attested indirectly as early as Philo. So Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 122, n. 14, argues that “Der älteste Beleg für eine Beziehung von Jes 54,1 auf Sara ist Philon, Praem. 158 f. Dort wird der Vers ‘allegorisch gedeutet’ auf die Seele (ἐπὶ ψυχῆς ἀλληγορεῖται). Sara (nach ihrer Umbenennung in ‘Sarra’) ist für Philon zwar überwiegend die Weisheit oder die Tugend.” Philo does not make the exact identification that we find in Paul, but both Sarah and Isa 54:1 are connected with the soul and wisdom in Philonic allegory. I think it likely that this exegetical connection was common in Second Temple Judaism and that Paul adapted it from this tradition.  Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 62.  Ibid.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

39

hind the language of the Isaiah citation and returns to the grammar of his earlier paraphrastic statement in Gal 4:23. The two masculine subjects, the participle γεννηθείς, and the flesh/non-flesh dichotomy echo the syntax and content of Gal 4:23 (ὁ μὲν … κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ … δι’ ἐπαγγελίας). Thus, I suggest that while Gal 4:24– 28 provides an “interpretation” of Gal 4:22, Gal 4:29 provides an “interpretation” of Gal 4:23. Even the ἀλλά of Gal 4:29 echoes the ἀλλά of Gal 4:23. Paul’s pattern of exegesis, while not formally indicated at every stage, is nonetheless clear. §4. Gal 4:30 – 5:1 Paul marks his third and final section with a triple flag. First, the conjunction ἀλλά distinguishes this verse from the preceding one. Second, unlike his transitions in Gal 4:23 and 29, in Gal 4:30 Paul poses a diatribal question rather than an exegetical comment, recalling the cross-examination of Gal 4:21 (see Rom 4:3). Third, rather than using γέγραπται (Gal 4:22, 27), Paul introduces the citation as the direct speech of personified γραφή, harking back to the role of this character in the divine economy in Gal 3:8, 22. Paul’s triple-underline in his citation formula indicates that this verse is closely linked to Paul’s initial question, “Do you not hear the Nomos?” As Richard Hays notes, “Paul’s interpretation of the story drives toward and centers on his quotation in verse 30 of Gen. 21:10.”³³ Gal 4:31 provides a conclusion to this fourth section, and indeed to the entire allegorical exegesis. While the appearance of παιδίσκη and ἐλευθέρα clearly pick up Paul’s modified citation in Gal 4:30, the recurrence of τέκνα points back to the citation from Isaiah and language in Gal 4:25 – 28. Additionally, Paul’s use of διό suggests that Gal 4:31 is not only a conclusion drawn from the citation in Gal 4:30, but a more wide-reaching summary.

2.2.4 Implicit Old Testament Controls In the previous section, I suggested that Paul’s allegory could be divided into a two-part paraphrase from the Abraham cycle (Gal 4:22– 23), a sequential allegory of these two verses in Gal 4:24– 28 (= 4:22) and Gal 4:29 (= 4:23), and a modified scriptural citation of Gen 21:10 in Gal 4:30 – 31, which serves as an exhortation. Paul’s four central formulae, however, fail to answer all the questions about Gal 4:21– 31. Structural gaps occur in §1. Gal 4:22– 23 and §3. Gal 4:27– 29 between Gal 4:22 and 23 and Gal 4:28 and 29 respectively. Returning to these gaps, I will

 Hays, Echoes, 112.

40

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

argue that the OT text itself provides the missing key for understanding Paul’s exegesis. §1. Gal 4:22– 23 Many scholars argue that Gal 4:22– 4:23 presents a single and unified paraphrastic unit. If it does, then determining what text Paul is paraphrasing becomes next to impossible. The terms ἐπαγγελία and σάρξ in Gal 4:23 could allude to a number of passages from Genesis 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21.³⁴ If, on the other hand, I am correct in isolating Gal 4:22 as a primary paraphrase on the basis of the adversative exegetical ἀλλά in Gal 4:23 and its quasi-independent exegesis in 4:24– 28, the question can be raised anew. Paul’s use of the citation formula γέγραπται provides the initial clue that Paul may have a particular verse in mind in Gal 4:22. As I mentioned above, of Paul’s thirty-three uses of this introductory formula, only here does it introduce a paraphrase. A study of the γέγραπται formula in Paul shows that by far in the majority of instances, Paul’s use of the formula is connected to one particular verse or a limited nexus of verses.³⁵ Therefore, one should not simply pass over this anomalous usage without asking whether Paul’s paraphrastic referent can be pinpointed more concretely. According to Paul’s paraphrase, “Abraham had two sons, one from the slave woman and one from the free woman.” The natural starting place is to ask where in scripture, particularly in the Pentateuch, it says that Abraham had two sons. There are two primary possibilities. Either Paul is reading together Gen 16:15 and Gen 21:2– 3, as Nestle-Aland suggests; or, he is paraphrasing Gen 21:9 – 10. A third

 See Schlier, Galater, 154: “Paulus faßt wie Rom 97ff nur Ismael und Isaak ins Auge und denkt an Gen 1615 212.9.” Betz, Galatians, 241: “[Paul] provides a kind of summary of Gen 16:15; 21:2– 3, 9.” Martyn, Galatians, 432, is not so circumspect, but presumes that Paul simply has the whole narrative in view: “In his reading of the stories of the births of Ismael and Isaac to Hagar and Sarah respectively (Genesis 16 – 21) Paul finds a series of polar opposites arranged in two parallel columns.” As he clarifies on pp. 447– 48: “Gal 4:21– 5:1, the letter’s second exegetical argument (the first being 3:6 – 4:7), is framed by two questions [4:21, 4:30] … The vocabulary with which Paul constructs this argument shows that he is interpreting the texts of Genesis 16 and 21, while taking side glances at Genesis 15 and 17, and developing the motif of promise from Genesis 15 and 18. To a considerable extent Paul stays close to the Genesis texts.” Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 60, notes similarly: “V. 22– 23 ist ein zusammenfassendes Referat von bestimmten Aussagen aus Gen 16 – 17 und 21.” Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 9, likewise considers Gal 4:22– 31 an “Allegorese der Abraham-Erzählung von Gen 16; 17,15 – 22; 18,9 – 15; 21,1– 21.” I have not found anyone who argues, as I do, that Gal 4:22 is a paraphrase of Gen 21:9 – 10. It is also surprising that none of these scholars mention Gen 11:30, as that text seems concretely echoed in Paul’s choice of Isa 54:1.  Of the 33 instances of γέγραπται in Paul’s undisputed epistles, only six (1 Cor 15:54; Rom 3:10, 9:33, 11:8,26, and 12:19 [?]) introduce catenae. The remaining 26 introduce (excepting Gal 4:22) introduce single quotations.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

41

possibility comes from Gen 25:9, a fourth from 1 Chronicles 1:28, which are to my mind less likely. I will begin there. (A) 1 Chronicles 1:28 is part of a lengthy genealogy, which states quite laconically υἱοὶ δὲ ᾿Aβραάμ· Ἰσαάκ καὶ Ἰσμαήλ. The statement contains most of the information required to produce “Abraham had two sons.” I think it unlikely, however, that Paul is thinking of this verse. In addition to its location outside the Pentateuch, Isaac and Ishmael appear in the inverse order that they do in 4:22b (“one from the slave woman, one from the free woman”). Instead of providing the referent of Paul’s paraphrase, 1 Chronicles 1:28 represents a parallel paraphrastic tradition, which highlights the two ethnographically most important sons of Abraham to the exclusion of his later sons by concubines in Gen 25:1– 6. (B) Gen 25:9 (καὶ ἔθαψεν αὐτὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰσμαὴλ οἱ υἰοὶ αὐτοῦ) appears closer to the mark, in that it does occur in the Pentateuch. However, the sequence of the sons’ names, as in 1 Chronicles, has also already received a theological inversion. (C) Gen 16:15 and Gen 21:2 – 3 A third option is to argue that Paul was creating a paraphrastic synthesis of two particular passages: Gen 16:15 καὶ ἔτεκεν Ἁγὰρ τῷ ᾿Aβρὰμ υἱόν, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ᾿Aβρὰμ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὃν ἔτεκεν Ἁγάρ, Ἰσμαήλ. And Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore him, Ishmael. Gen 21:2– 3 καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν Σάρρα τῷ ᾿Aβραὰμ υἱὸν εἰς τὸ γῆρας εἰς τὸν καιρόν, καθὰ ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ κύριος. καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ᾿Aβραὰμ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου αὐτῷ, ὃν ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ Σάρρα, Ἰσαάκ. And having conceived, Sarah bore Abraham a son in his old age at the appropriate time, just as the Lord had told him. And Abraham called the name of his son, who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac.

The two passages are based on the same narrative formula, although the latter shows some expansions. Both involve a birth and naming formula (ἔτεκεν [mother] [father] υἱόν … [name of son]). By drawing these two verses together using the rhetorical device of σύνκρισις πρὸς ἴσον, known more commonly in the later rabbinic literature as ‫גזירה שוה‬,³⁶ Paul could craft the paraphrase of

 For the Hellenistic background of this rabbinic middah, see the discussion in Saul Liebermann, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners

42

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Gal 4:22a. These verses supply much of the material needed for Paul’s subsequent exegesis. They do not, however, refer to Hagar as παιδίσκη. If Paul is indeed paraphrasing these two verses, then in doing so, he also alludes to the entire Abraham story as well. (D) Gen 21:9 – 10 There are only two verses in scripture which place Abraham’s two sons together in the same verse and in the same sequence as they appear in Gal 4:22: Gen 21:9 – 10 9

ἰδοῦσα δὲ Σάρρα τὸν υἱὸν Ἁγὰρ τῆς Αἰγυπτίας, ὃς ἐγένετο τῷ ᾿Aβραάμ, παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς, 10 καὶ εἶπεν τῷ ᾿Aβραάμ “Ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην ταύτην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ μου Ἰσαάκ.” But when Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who was born to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac, she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman and her son; for the son of this slave woman will not inherit with my son, Isaac.

For several reasons, I think Gen 21:9 – 10 provides the most probable textual base for Paul’s paraphrase. In the first place, the two sons appear together only here in their birth order in two successive verses. This fact alone might have been enough to attract the attention of an ancient interpreter. Second, Ishmael and Isaac appear in a distributive contrast (“the son of Hagar, the son of [Sarah]”) which Paul echoes in Gal 4:22b, “one from the slave woman, one from the free woman.” In each case, the formula “son + maternal genitive” appears. Third, Gen 21:10 supplies the word παιδίσκη. ἐλευθέρα, by contrast, a non-scriptural term, is clearly introduced to formalize the polarity between the two mothers and to set up the allegory.³⁷ Fourth, Ishmael’s name is absent from Gen 21:9 –

of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.–IV Century C.E. (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 18; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), esp. 58 – 62. For the argument that “lexematic association” is the better term for what happens in Romans 4, see Friedrich Avemarie, “Interpreting Scripture through Scripture: Exegesis Based on Lexematic Associations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pauline Epistles,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. Florentino García-Martinez; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 83 – 102, esp. 94– 96.  Martyn, Galatians, 434, argues that Paul took over this antithesis from the allegory of his opponents. It could be argued that ἐλευθέρα is simply the literal and logical antithesis of παιδίσκη. Betz, Galatians, 242, n.37, remains noncommittal. Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 10, who thinks that Paul himself created this antithesis (slave and free), admits that the identity of Sarah as “free” is not a given, as it occurs nowhere in the Biblical text. In fact, by a comparison with the Philonic treatments of Hagar and Sarah, one recognizes that the more logical antithesis of παιδίσκη in the context of the OT narrative is not ἐλευθέρα (which could indicate that Sarah was a freedwoman) but δέσποινα, “mistress” (See esp. Cong. 14, 23), or some other

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

43

10, as it is from Gal 4:21– 5:1. Finally, the fact that the whole exegetical passage, beginning with Paul’s initial question in Gal 4:21 (“Do you not hear the Law?”), climaxes with the quotation of Gen 21:10 by the personified Scripture in Gal 4:30, suggests that Paul had this verse in mind at the beginning of his argument. §3. Gal 4:29 The conclusion that Gal 4:22 constructs a paraphrase from Gen 21:9 – 10, and that this paraphrase provides the lemma which grounds Paul’s subsequent comments, finds further support in an examination of the scriptural controls on Gal 4:29. As noted above, Gal 4:29 “comments” on Gal 4:23. A closer analysis reveals that Gal 4:29 also adds paraphrastic material from the Abraham cycle, even as it extends Paul’s allegorical commentary. In particular, the additional detail that one son persecuted (ἐδίωκεν) the other finds no explicit basis in Gal 4:22– 23. Nowhere in the LXX does it specifically mention that Ishmael persecuted Isaac. Rather, as has often been noted, Paul’s statement in Gal 4:29 introduces an interpretive paraphrase of Gen 21:9: ἰδοῦσα δὲ Σάρρα τὸν υἱὸν Ἁγὰρ τῆς Αἰγυπτίας, ὃς ἐγένετο τῷ ᾿Aβραάμ, παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς But when Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who was born to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac …

The critical word here is the participle παίζοντα and its Hebrew equivalent ‫מצחק‬. Rabbinic tradition read into this participle not merely the meaning “to jest” but also “to enter into military contest with,” or “to sport with.”³⁸ In the Tosefta and Genesis Rabbah, one finds Ishmael shooting arrows at Isaac.³⁹ A similar tradition appears in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. ⁴⁰ Betz finds the tradition in Josephus, but not in Philo,⁴¹ while Sellin finds this tradition in nuce in Philo as well.⁴²

term indicating governance (Cong. 1, ἀρχή μου). Paul, who unlike Philo probably knew Hebrew, could have made this connection etymologically (Heb. śār, śārāh). ἐλευθέρα looks beyond the immediate exegetical context into the polemical situation of Paul’s letter, where the Judaizing teachers threatened the freedom of the Galatians (see Gal 2:4; 5:1, 13 [bis]). Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 118, n.3, and 120 sees the polarity rooted in a Jewish interpretative tradition, but linked also to Paul’s paraenesis in Gal 5:1.  The reading was facilitated through comparison of the root ‫( צחק‬to laugh, to sport) in Gen 21:9 and the related root ‫ שחק‬in 2 Sam 2:14. See Schlier, Galater, 151; and Betz, Galatians, 250, n. 116, for more details.  See t.Sot ̣a 6:6; Gen. Rab. 53:11.  Tar. Ps.-J. 22:1.  See Betz, Galatians, 250 n. 116. The tradition here is similar, though not identical. As Josephus, Ant. 1.215, paraphrases the scene (Gen 21:9 – 10), after Sarah gives birth to Isaac, “she did not think that Ishmael should be reared alongside [Isaac], since he was older and could harm him (κακουργεῖν δυνάμενον) once their father had died.” In Josephus’s account, Sarah

44

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Even without recourse to an interpretive tradition, Paul could have derived this interpretation from the LXX by connecting the verb παίζειν with the compound form ἐμπαίζειν, “to mock or ridicule.” The verb shares the same semantic field as διώκειν and denotes violent persecution, as its use in the Synoptic passion narratives and 2 Maccabees demonstrates.⁴³ In the LXX translation of Gen 21:9 – 10, the child who plays (παίζοντα, Gen 21:9) is also etymologically linked to his enslaved mother (παιδίσκη, Gen 21:10), thereby creating a new exegetical potential (lacking in the Hebrew!)—a textual “trigger” which calls for further interpretation.⁴⁴ Ishmael’s actions, which in Hebrew link him to Isaac, in Greek link him to his mother Hagar and her enslaved status. Gal 4:29 thus paraphrases Gen 21:9b, rewriting it with an eye toward its allegorical and ethical significance. Whereas Gal 4:29 draws specifically on Gen 21:9, Gal 4:30 cites Gen 21:10. Paul thus concludes his allegory in Gal 4:29 – 30 interpreting the same two verses from Genesis that he paraphrases in Gal 4:22. Of course, it is still possible, as C. K. Barrett claims, that Paul has the entirety of Gen 21:1– 10 in mind.⁴⁵ To further support the argument for Paul’s more narrow textual focus, I will suggest that Gen 21:9 – 10 shaped not only Gal 4:22, 29 – 30, but also plays a structuring role in Paul’s first allegorical interpretation (Gal 4:24– 28) by supplying all the proper names used there, and these in the proper order. Hagar’s name appears at the beginning of the allegory (Gal 4:24, 25) and Isaac’s name at the close (Gal 4:28). In Gen 21:9 – 10, these same two proper names bookend the two verses, with Isaac standing as the conclusion of both Gen 21:9 and 21:10; Paul’s use of these two names, and his omission of Ishmael, can be explained if he took Gen 21:9 – 10 as his lemma. Of course, this leaves open the question of why the proper names of Sarah and Abraham have been left out of Paul’s first allegorical commentary (Gal 4:24– 28). I will return to that question in a narratological excursus in section 2.2.5. For the time being, a consideration of the implicit scriptural controls on Paul’s argu-

presumably sees some premonition of an adult persecution in the roughhousing boys. Paul, by contrast, uses the biblical text itself (παίζοντα) as the basis for a contemporizing allegory.  Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 72: “Aber schon bei Philon wird das ‘Spielen’ Ismaels getadelt: Ismael ist deshalb verjagt, ‘weil er als unehelicher Sohn sich im Scherze (ἐν παιδιαῖς) die Ebenbürtigkeit mit jenem (Isaak) anmaßte (Sobr 8) … eine derartige Lektüre des παίζειν in malam partem [war] nicht einmalig.”  Matt 27:29; Mark 10:34; 15:20; Luke 22:63; 23:36; 2 Macc 7:10.  The Hebrew, alternatively, entails a play between the participle describing Hagar’s son, ‫מצחק‬ (Gen 21:9) and the proper name of Sarah’s son, ‫( יצחק‬Gen 21:10), which are the final words of each sentence. This paronomasia does not create a link between mother and son, but between son and son. While the Greek loses this latter connection, it gains the former.  See Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham.”

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

45

ment presented on Table 2.1 (above) suggests that Gen 21:9 – 10 has left its mark on the content and sequence of every major section of this pericope. Furthermore, it appears that Paul works through both verses twice, once in Gal 4:22, 24– 28 and a second time in Gal 4:29 – 5:1. Paul thus composes his exegesis with careful attention to the structure and detail of these two verses. Gen 21:9 – 10 provided for him more than ample material on which to hang the entire Abraham narrative (Gal 4:23) and thence, with the help of Gen 11:30, to draw in a potent intertext with Isaiah (Gal 4:27).

2.2.5 A Narratological Confirmation: Graphē as Sarah, Paul as God There remains one wrinkle in this thesis to iron out: Why, if Paul included all the other proper names in Gen 21:9 – 10, did he not also include Sarah (Gen 21:9)? One answer might be that Paul’s interest in Sarah’s figural significance in Gal 4:24– 28 as “free woman,” “barren woman,” “Jerusalem above,” and “our mother” has caused him to omit her name. Qui tacet, clamat, as the saying goes, and on this reading, Sarah’s anonymity in the passage stems not from Paul’s patriarchal neglect but from her universal fame. The intertextual connection between the explicit secondary lemma LXX Isa 54:1 (Gal 4:27) and Gen 11:30, centering on the word στεῖρα, only serves to highlight Sarah’s place of honor as the woman who foretells, in her scriptural person, the history of Israel’s return from captivity and the removal of her shame. Another answer can be given drawing on the rich theoretical insights of narratology. One begins by noting that in Gen 21:9 – 10, Sarah is not herself a foregrounded character in the playful exchange between Ishmael and Isaac, but rather the one who sees (ἰδοῦσα) the scene and speaks (εἶπεν) about it to Abraham.⁴⁶ To use the language of narratology, Sarah is the focalizer, through whom the scene is viewed. This does not mean that Sarah is grammatically absent in the scene (Gen 21:9 αὐτῆς; 21:10 μου); rather, she occupies a special position with regard to the other characters in the narrative. “In the frame,” Sarah is simply Isaac’s mother; as focalizer of the scene, however, Sarah provides Paul with a character

 The basic theory is set out by Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (2nd ed.; trans. Christine van Boheemen; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985 [1980]), esp. 100 – 14. Sarah’s vision, which is expressly thematized, is the important point, for within Bal’s narratological context, it is vision (not speaking) that determines the focalizer.

46

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

whose dramatic mask Graphē (Scripture), as a hypostasized authoritative interpreter, can wear.⁴⁷ Even if Paul would not speak of focalizers, he is not oblivious to Sarah’s controlling role in this scene. Rather, several textual cues suggest that Paul has picked up on Sarah’s role as focalizing perspective and transferred it to his own personified character(s), Nomos/Graphē. ⁴⁸ This is not part of the allegory proper (where Sarah is the free woman/Jerusalem above), but is rather a kind of figurative transfer that helps Paul relate the scene which Graphē shows and interprets (4:22– 29) to the command that Graphē makes (Gal 4:30). The simplest way to demonstrate this is to note that Graphē or Scripture, in Gal 4:30, speaks the words which originally belonged to Sarah in Gen 21:10. But Graphē does not don the mask of Sarah at only this point in the pericope. Rather, in Gal 4:21, Paul asks those who wish to be under the law, “do you not hear the law” (τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε)? This might be merely an ordinary appeal introducing an argument from scripture, but the context of Gen 21:9 – 10 suggests an alternative. In viewing the broader context of this quotation, one sees a striking similarity between Paul’s imperative to the Galatians and God’s imperative to Abraham in Gen 21:12: “Whatever Sarah tells you to do, obey [lit. hear] her voice,” πάντα ὅσα εἴπῃ σοι Σάρρα, ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῆς (Gen 21:12).⁴⁹ God’s command to Abraham, “hear her voice,” echoes and anticipates Paul’s rhetorical question to the Galatians, “Do you (pl.) not hear the Law?” In light of this similarity, I would suggest that Paul, reflecting on Sarah’s role within the pericope, came to see her as a character akin to Graphē in his own narrative of salvation history, one whose voice needed both to be heard (Gen 21:10/Gal 4:30) and  Using Bal’s terminology in Narratology, 105, one might say that Sarah is the “internal focalizer” within the context of Genesis, but that she functions additionally as an “external focalizer” (as Graphē dons her character) in Galatians.  In the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim, ‫ הכתוב‬and ‫ התורה‬are more sharply distinguished than ἡ γραφή and ὁ νόμος in Paul’s letters. Nonetheless, Paul’s hypostatization of ἡ γραφή as an interpretative authority bears striking resemblance to the role of ‫ הכתוב‬in Ishmaelian midrash, particularly considering the pedagogical function of Scripture in both corpora. According to Yadin, Scripture as Logos, 13, 27, ‫ הכתוב‬is “personified Scripture,” which “‘comes to teach you’ (‫בא הכתוב‬ ‫ ;)ללמדך‬ha-katuv is not always present, but arrives in order to expound the meaning of the ambiguous verse.”  Philo, Leg. 3.245, similarly allegorizes Sarah as God’s oracle (χρησμῷ … θεοῦ) to Abraham. See the analyses of Halvor Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans (SNT 3; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 137; Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (NovTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 108 – 11, 124– 27. While Sarah is linked here with virtue, Philo also connects her with χρησμός/νόμος (“let that which is pleasing to virtue be a law [nomos] to each of us”), a tradition with some similarity to Paul’s understanding Sarah as νόμος/γραφή in Gal 4:21, 30.

2.2 Gal 4:21 – 5:1

47

obeyed (Gen 21:12/Gal 4:21). As Graphē dons the mask of Sarah, Sarah’s role as focalizing character recedes, allowing Graphē to use her voice in order to make a different argument. Sarah’s displacement by Graphē, furthermore, frees her to be used as an allegorical figure.⁵⁰ This much seems plausible enough from the pericope at hand and provides a clear reason, be it unconscious or no, why Sarah’s proper name does not occur in the allegorical interpretation (Gal 4:24– 28). This does not mean that Paul could not have used it; it simply means that he did not, and that there is a plausible exegetical reason why. It is not the role of narratology to describe the conscious intentions of the author of a text and I am not claiming that Paul himself sat down and worked out this equation. However, if one were to press this equation further to the other characters in the story, a set of correspondences emerges which maps nicely onto Paul’s own rhetorical situation. The playbill might look as follows (Table 2.2): Table 2.2: Narratological Playbill of Gen 21:9 – 10 Dramatis personae Sarah, who commands Abraham Abraham, who is reluctant about the command God, who tells Abraham to listen to Sarah

Graphē The Galatians Paul

Again, I am not claiming that Paul had this all worked out in a schematic fashion, nor that he would have seen himself in persona Dei, nor that these relations in any sense exhaust the signification of the scriptural characters. This is, rather, a heuristic exercise, drawing on the methods of narratology, which demonstrates that Gen 21:9 – 10 provides more than a structuring outline for Paul in Gal 4:21– 5:1. The viewer of this scene in Gen 21:9 – 10 (Sarah) provides a very close parallel to the epistolary persona (Graphē) who interprets that same scene in Galatians.⁵¹ This narratological excursus further confirms the con-

 The problem of the focalizer in allegorical exegesis is complex. For a theoretical discussion and examples of Philo’s exploitation of the focalizer in his commentaries, see Tzvi Novick, “Perspective, Paideia, and Accommodation in Philo,” SPhA 21 (2009): 49 – 62.  I do not want to belabor this point, since my analysis of Paul’s pattern of exegesis here is not dependent on it. However, it seems at least worth noting that as here in Gal 4:21, 30, so also earlier in Gal 3:8, in her only other appearance in this letter, Graphē functions as a focalizing presence who sees (προϊδοῦσα) and speaks (προευηγγελίσατο) the plan of God to Abraham. For the notion that characterization and “prepreaching” of Graphē in Gal 3:8 provides a “hermeneutical guideline” for reading Galatians, see Hays, “Children,” 107. Of course, there is nothing in that earlier context to suggest that Graphē is wearing Sarah’s mask in Gal 3:8. However, the descrip-

48

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

clusion above. Paul’s pattern of exegesis in Gal 4:21– 31 represents a give-andtake between the controls of Paul’s own citation formulae, his scriptural paraphrase, and the Septuagintal pericope, Gen 21:9 – 10, which provides both the content and the structure for his exegesis.

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25 A second important example of sustained Pauline exegesis focused on an Abrahamic text occurs in Rom 4:3 – 25. In fact, every major section of Romans involves some creative engagement with scripture on Paul’s part.⁵² Windisch’s selection of the current pericope as relevant to 2 Cor 3:7– 18 will be justified by the results of the ensuing study. All the caveats which were made in the previous section regarding the necessity of leaving aside various theological discussions apply equally in the case of this pericope.

2.3.1 The Exegetical Pattern Rom 4:3 – 25 is heavily peppered with language drawn directly from Paul’s primary lemma, Gen 15:6.⁵³ Unlike Gal 4:21– 5:1, however, Rom 4:3 – 25 cannot be structured solely in exegetical terms; it is an integral part of Paul’s epistolary diatribe. The following exegetical pattern (Table 2.3 below) thus possesses impor-

tion of Sarah in Gen 21:9 – 10 as one who sees (ἰδοῦσα) and speaks (εἶπεν) is oddly close the earlier role of Graphē in Gal 3:8. I make this observation at the narratological level, not as an assessment of authorial intention.  In addition to the present pericope, one thinks especially, in Romans 1– 4, of Paul’s engagement with Wisdom of Solomon 13 – 15 in Romans 1– 2 and the Psalms in Romans 3; in Romans 5 – 8, of Paul’s use of the primeval history throughout and Exodus 20 in Romans 7; in Romans 9 – 11, inter alia, of Paul’s antiphonal preaching with Isaiah (so Wagner, Heralds); in Romans 12 – 15, of the way many preceding voices and themes are recapitulated, including both law and prophets; and, in Romans 16, a final triumphal allusion to the Hebrew (?) text of Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20.  The same lemma is interpreted by Paul in Gal 3:6– 14 [18])—a feature which has suggested to many the possibility that an exegetical or structuralist comparison of the two passages might prove fruitful, both for understanding Pauline exegesis as well as the development of his theology. For one example of such a study, focused on the “contingency of the [Pauline] Gospel,” see Johan Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought (trans. Loren T. Stuckenbruck; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 45 – 51. See also Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 312– 315.

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

49

tant lacunae, which can only be accounted for by several other thematic and epistolary/rhetorical controls. Table 2.3: Exegetical Pattern of Rom 4:3 – 25 Rom : – 

Citation of primary lemma, Gen :, and interpretation of Gen :b, focusing on ἐλογίσθη Rom : –  Secondary lemma, LXX Ps : –  Rom : – a Echoes of Gen : and :? Rom :b –  Interpretation of Gen :a, focusing on ἐπίστευσεν Rom : Contextualizing lemma, LXX Gen : Rom : Contextualizing lemma, LXX Gen : Rom : –  Interpretation of Gen :b, focusing on the indirect object (ἐλογίσθη) αὐτῷ and reinterpreting it, in the messianic context, as τοῖς πιστεύουσιν

2.3.2 The Pericope The prevailing view in many commentaries and monographs has been to consider Romans 4 as a discrete unit of exegesis, in which Paul closes the first major section of his letter with an extensive exegetical discussion of Abraham’s faith. The work of Stanley Stowers, in his dissertation and subsequent commentary on Romans, constitutes an important corrective to this view. In his dissertation on Paul and the Stoic-Cynic diatribe, Stowers makes a strong case that Rom 4:1– 25 cannot be read in isolation from Rom 3:27– 31.⁵⁴ For Stowers, Rom 3:27– 4:2 forms a diatribal exchange between two speakers which is then complemented by the rhetorical exemplum of Abraham in Rom 4:3 – 25.⁵⁵ While one may dispute the precise details of Stowers’ structural analysis of Rom 3:27– 4:25, his judgment that Rom 3:27– 31 comprises an integral part of Romans 4 has received widespread support.⁵⁶ The question posed in

 Stanley Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981), esp. 155 – 174. For Paul and the diatribe more generally, see Abraham J. Malherbe, “Μὴ Γένοιτο in the Diatribe and Paul,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 231– 40; and Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (FRLANT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [1910]).  Stowers, Diatribe, 155, 171.  See Richard Hays, “Abraham Father of Jews and Gentiles,” in idem, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 61– 84. Revised version of “‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather according to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 (1985): 76 – 98.

50

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Rom 4:1 should not be seen in isolation from the string of questions which begins at Rom 3:27.⁵⁷ In his more recent commentary entitled A Rereading of Romans, Stowers has again pushed the margins of the pericope, this time in the direction of Romans 5. In contrast to his prior work, Stowers argues that Rom 3:27– 5:11 comprises a unified “exegetical argument and exemplum.”⁵⁸ In fact, Stowers argues even more radically that the entirety of Rom 2:17– 5:11 “reads best if one places a premium on unity … The argument and discourse of 2:17– 5:11 fit together so tightly that any division poses difficulties.”⁵⁹ Where then should one begin and end the pericope? Ultimately, the criteria for delimitation depend upon the phenomenon that the exegete is trying to explain. From the vantage point of Paul’s use of the Old Testament, Abraham first enters the stage in Rom 4:1. One could further argue that repetition of the particle οὖν 4:1 (cf. 3:27) represents a minor break within the diatribe, and therefore provides a warrant for beginning the discussion here. Due to my primary interest in Pauline patterns of exegesis, however, while keeping an eye on Rom 3: (21)27– 4:2, I will begin the treatment at Romans 4:3. The case for excluding Rom 5:1– 11 seems relatively more straightforward, since the theological themes of Rom 3:27– 4:25 recede quickly from view, and the transitional οὖν of Rom 5:1 at the outset of the sentence marks the beginning of a new section—and indeed, according to some estimations, the beginning of a major new rhetorical unit.⁶⁰ In contrast to Gal 5:1, which has a backward-looking component (οὖν does not occur until the second half of the sentence), Rom 5:1 articulates a clear, forward-looking momentum from the outset.

2.3.3 Explicit Pauline Controls Unlike Gal 4:21– 5:1, Paul’s exposition of the Abraham cycle in Romans 4 is neither so brief, nor so tightly argued, nor so scripturally focused. To be sure,

 N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 193, 217, would push the beginning of this section back ever further, reading 3:21– 4:25 as a unit.  Stanley Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 231.  Stowers, Rereading, 231, 247.  So, e. g. Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 344– 46, who suggests that Rom 5:1 begins a second probatio, using a classic rhetorical transition known from the Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.26.35.

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

51

Gen 15:6 is the primary text, but several other passages from the Abraham cycle are cited or directly alluded to. Moreover, Abraham’s role as exemplum—though not “mere” exemplum to be sure—and scriptural witness (Rom 3:21) in a diatribal discourse indicates that Paul has integrated his exegesis more completely within the argumentative framework of the letter than he had in the Sarah and Hagar allegory. This makes determining Paul’s overt exegetical controls more difficult to ascertain. Put another way, the difficulty of describing Paul’s use of scripture in Romans 4 is that one has to determine when Paul is “doing commentary” or adapting an interpretative tradition, and when Paul is advancing his diatribe or argument. In a certain sense, of course, Paul is always advancing his argument, in Gal 4:21– 5:1 as well as here. What is troubling about this case is that the logic of the passage is not readily provided by its diatribal structure. Stowers himself perceptively states the interpreter’s conundrum in his dissertation: Reading 3:27– 4:25 as a ‘dialogue’ and exemplum suggests that there is a strong continuity in the argumentation between 3:27– 31 and 4:1– 25 and that the chapter division is misleading … This does not, of course, explain everything in the chapter. Rather, the chapter reflects both the features of an exemplum and also traditions of Jewish interpretation of Abraham and of the scriptures. This suggests a milieu where Jewish traditions and methods of interpretation were well integrated with Hellenistic rhetorical and literary methods.⁶¹

The challenge, then, for the Pauline scholar seeking to understand the rhetorical unity of Rom 3:(21)27– 4:25 is that known Greco-Roman rhetorical forms cannot give an adequate explanation; neither can straightforward exegetical logic. Paul’s fusion of the two represents one of his major contributions to literature, rhetoric, and theology, but it makes this passage all the more difficult to analyze. Should we therefore conclude that the search for overt Pauline “controls of scripture” is a vain effort in Romans 4? μὴ γένοιτο! Rather it is rendered all the more necessary, not only by Stowers’ assertion of the importance of Jewish traditions in Paul’s exemplum, but also because of the sheer length of this exegetical passage (Rom 4:3 – 25!) in comparison to the preceding discussion (Rom 3: [21]27– 4:1[2]) it is meant to illustrate and contextualize within the scope of salvation history.⁶² Otto Michel already recognized the disproportionate length of Romans 4 in relation to the preceding material, and on that ground suggested that Paul may have reused an independent “midrasch”:

 Stowers, Diatribe, 174.  I have bracketed Rom 4:1[2] because Stowers and Hays disagree as to whether the section ends at Rom 4:1 (Hays, “Abraham as Father,” 75) or Rom 4:2 (Stowers, Diatribe, 171).

52

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Das neue Kapitel wirkt wie ein selbständiges Ganzes, wie ein exegetischer Midrasch, der sich an Röm 3, 21– 31 anschließt. Dabei fällt auf, daß der wichtige Abschnitt Röm 3, 21– 31 relativ kurz ist, während der angefügte Schriftbeweis ziemlich ausführlich geführt wird. Vielleicht war dieser Midrasch ursprünglich selbständig.⁶³

Michel’s view is adopted by E. Earl Ellis and Hans-Jürgen van der Minde, but rejected in its strong form by Halvor Moxnes. Moxnes, nonetheless, sees Paul as heavily indebted to Jewish exegetical tradition.⁶⁴ Whatever the source-critical origins of Romans 4, Michel’s observation about the relative imbalance between Rom 3:21– 31 and the “detailed” scriptural exposition in Romans 4 reinforces the need to approach this passage afresh from the vantage point of Paul’s pattern of exegesis. Again, to state my conclusion clearly at the outset: As in Gal 4:21– 5:1, Paul exerts formal controls over scripture in Romans 4 through five citation formulae (Rom 4:3, 6, 9b, 17, 18, 23) and a series of explicit questions posed to (or by) his diatribal interlocutor (Rom 4:1, 3, 9; Cf. Rom 2:1, 3, 17). While the questions relate primarily to Paul’s broader argumentative framework, the citation formulae pertain more directly to Paul’s commentary practices. Rom 4:3 represents a special taxonomical case, belonging to both groups. The citation formulae, however, are not all of a kind. While Rom 4:3 and 6 occur in primary positions and set the course of the exegesis, the formulae of Rom 4:17 and 18 occur in the subsidiary context of what I have provisionally called a “hymn to Abraham.” The “negative” citation, οὐκ ἐγράφη, follows yet another pattern of paraenetic exhortation (cf. 1 Cor 9:10). As in Gal 4:21– 5:1, so here it will emerge that these formulae do not exercise enough control over the passage to be considered determinative for the logic of the exegesis. The structure of this passage depends to a greater degree here on the rhetorical function of the exegesis in Paul’s diatribe than was the case in Galatians. This should not, however, rule out the possibility that the commentary itself preceded the letter (as Michel suggested) and played a formative role in shaping its argument. The relative paucity of Pauline citation formulae in this chapter also opens the possibility that implicit scriptural controls exercise an

 Otto Michel, Der Brief an der Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), 98.  See E. Earle Ellis, “Exegetical Patterns in 1 Corinthians and Romans,” in idem, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 213 – 20, esp. 217; Hans-Jürgen van der Minde, Schrift und Tradition bei Paulus: ihre Bedeutung und Funktion im Römerbrief (München: F. Schöningh, 1976), 78 – 83; cf. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 205. Moxnes, Conflict, 203 sees in Rom 4:13 – 21 “the largest single block of traditional material which Paul has incorporated into his midrash on Gen 15:6.”

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

53

even greater influence on this passage than they did in Gal 4:21– 5:1. This, I will argue, is the case at least in Rom 4:3 – 12 (see section 3.4 below). §1. Rom 4:3 – 12 Although Rom 4:1– 2 thematically belongs to this section, posing an objection to the foregoing argument, Paul’s commentary on Gen 15:6 formally begins only in verse 3.⁶⁵ The exegetical discussion of Abraham can roughly be divided into two sections,⁶⁶ with appreciable subdivisions. Rom 4:3 – 12 deals with the theme of δικαιοσύνη reckoned to Abraham on the basis of faith rather than works [of the nomos], including the important example of circumcision. This section thus interprets and “fleshes out” Rom 3:27b – 30. It can be divided into three subsections, on the basis of the three citation formulae in Rom 4:3, 6, and 9. §1.1 Rom 4:3 – 5 Paul’s first and central scriptural proof is a direct citation of Gen 15:6. It is introduced by the formulaic question τί γὰρ ἡ γράφη λέγει (cf. Gal 4:30). The δέ of Paul’s citation, which replaces the Septuagint’s introductory καί, may heighten the adversarial sense of the statement in the context of the diatribe, where it is being argued that Abraham was not justified by works (see Rom 4:1). The verb ἐπίστευσεν in Rom 4:3 (Gen 15:6a) hearkens back to διὰ νόμου πίστεως in Rom 3:27b, and καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην in Rom 4:3 (Gen 15:6b) looks back to λογιζόμεθα in Rom 3:28, which in fact paraphrases Gen 15:6 in its entirety. Paul has thus clearly chosen Gen 15:6 as a “proof” of his earlier argument.⁶⁷ §1.2 Rom 4:6 – 8 Paul’s second citation formula introduces a secondary proof from LXX Ps 31:1– 2a. It is introduced with the formula καθάπερ καὶ  Hays, “Abraham as Father,” 61– 84, views the whole of Romans 4 through the lens of Rom 4:1. In doing so, he puts priority on the diatribal frame. While Hays’ study sheds new light on a difficult verse, it is not merely Rom 4:1 but the entirety of Rom 3:27– 4:2 which anticipate the themes of the exegetical exemplum. By beginning with Rom 4:3, then, I do not mean to deny the importance of the preceding diatribal argument. Given the aim of this study to tease apart exegetical from rhetorical/epistolary controls, however, it will be helpful to begin with the primary lemma and the subsequent exegesis. A similar issue attains in the case of the relationship between John 6:30 and 6:31, treated in chapter four of the present study.  In this regard, I follow Jewett, Romans, 306, 324, whose analysis is borne out by a close rereading of the major themes.  This does not mean, as I stated above, that Abraham is a “mere” exemplum, introduced for no other reason than to prove an isolated point. Paul knows where he is headed from an early point in the letter. While the first instance of λογίζεσθαι in Romans (Rom 2:3, λογίζῃ) betrays no inkling of that verb’s usage in Gen 15:6, the second occurrence in Rom 2:26 (λογισθήσεται), which uses the aorist passive stem (cf. Gen 15:6b) in a discussion of uncircumcision and circumcision (see Rom 4:9 – 12), already looks forward to Rom 4:3 – 12. Abraham thus functions as both a rhetorical witness and a theological metonymy for a greater salvation-historical code.

54

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Δαυὶδ λέγει. The Psalms were considered prophetic writings, as Paul’s foregrounding of David (qua prophet) makes clear.⁶⁸ Together with the first scriptural proof, it substantiates Paul’s claim that his gospel finds prior witness in both the law and the prophets (Rom 3:21) and that Abraham was reckoned righteous because of his faith in God, not his circumcision. This secondary citation is etymologically linked with Gen 15:6 by the verb λογίζεσθαι. Paul has cut the citation short at Ps 31:2a, omitting the second half of the couplet to highlight this verbal association. §1.3 Rom 4:9 – 12 The third subsection of Paul’s discussion of Abraham and “reckoning” begins with a diatribal question (Rom 4:9a), asked specifically of the secondary lemma from the psalm: Upon whom is David’s beatitude pronounced? The question is answered by a third citation formula which returns the focus to Paul’s primary lemma: “For we are saying that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Rom 4:9b). The diatribal question (Rom 4:9a) is then recast in the language of Gen 15:6: πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη; (Rom 4:10). All three subsections thus comment on the text of Gen 15:6 with special attention to the verb λογίζεσθαι. §1.1 Rom 4:3 – 5 denotes that “reckoning” happens by faith, not works; §1.2 Rom 4:6 – 8 introduces a secondary lemma which supports this position, suggesting that there would be no beatitude if sins were “reckoned”; §1.3 Rom 4:9 – 12 then returns to the primary lemma, making the scriptural argument that righteousness was “reckoned” to Abraham when he was uncircumcised. In addition to focusing on Gen 15:6, (§1.3) Rom 4:9 – 12 also clearly alludes to Genesis 17. The polarity of circumcision and uncircumcision is explicitly reiterated in every verse of Rom 4:9 – 12, sometimes more than once (Rom 4:10). The

 The treatment of the Psalms as prophecy in the texts discovered in the Judean desert support this judgment. Josephus (C.Ap. 1.38 – 40) provides the earliest explicit tripartition of the scriptures into the five books of Moses, the thirteen prophets, and a remaining group of four writings, but unfortunately, he does not specify which books fall into each category. Luke 24:44, which is sometimes also given as proof of a “tripartite canon,” may simply refer to a bipartite division as found in Luke 24:27. In this case “in the prophets and psalms” (Luke 24:44) is a merism denoting the totality of the prophetic collection, though of course, not specifying which books are included in that list other than the Psalms. If καί is to be understood epexegetically, then the phrase is better translated “in the prophets, especially in the Psalms.” This is the position of Eugene Ulrich (in lecture) and also Craig A. Evans, “The Scripture of Jesus and His Earliest Followers,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 185 – 95, esp. 190: “Because of the close association of the Psalter to the Prophets, as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and because in the New Testament David was viewed as a prophet (cf. Acts 1:16; 2:30; 4:25) and the Psalms as prophecy (cf. Acts 1:20), ‘the prophets and the psalms’ should probably be taken together.”

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

55

presence of this polarity is only the first sign that Paul has begun to turn his exegetical attention from Genesis 15 (the J account of God’s covenant with Abraham) toward Genesis 17 (the P account of God’s covenant with Abraham).⁶⁹ In Genesis 17, we find for the first time not only circumcision commanded (Gen 17:10 – 14), but also the word “sign” itself (σημεῖον: Gen 17:11), a term which is echoed in Rom 4:11. Genesis 17 is also where Abraham is first given the promise that he will become the “father of many nations” (Gen 17:4, 5), a point which is alluded to in Rom 4:11, 12 and which will return in Rom 4:16b – 18. This shift from Genesis 15 to Genesis 17 is not an afterthought on Paul’s account, but is foreshadowed in Abraham’s title προπάτηρ in Rom 4:1. Genesis 17, however, does not function as secondary lemma in the same sense as LXX Psalm 31. Neither would it be correct, I think, to consider it a primary lemma in its own right; it belongs too closely to the narrative context of Gen 15:6. It seems better to understand it as a contextualizing lemma or pericope, which is invoked because of the halakhic concerns of Paul’s argument (cf. Rom 3:30).⁷⁰ §2. Rom 4:13 – 22 Paul does not govern the second section of his exegetical exemplum through citation formulae in the same way that he did in §1. Rom 4:3 – 12. The two formulae employed here (Rom 4:17, 18) introduce prooftexts, and while they do play a structural role, they do not control the entire pericope. Neither are there significant diatribal markers to fall back on for want of citation formulae. The entire section, rather, achieves rhetorical unity through Paul’s emphasis on the theme of God’s ἐπαγγελία (Rom 4:13, 14, 16, 20, 21), a word that was absent from the previous section. While subdivisions in this second exegetical section are difficult to distinguish, I have nonetheless attempted a partition roughly along the lines of Paul’s use this noun. §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a constitutes an initial discourse on the promise. This unit is demarcated by a chiasm, opened with two nouns, Abraham and seed, τῷ ᾿Aβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ (Rom 4:13), and  The source-critical origins of Genesis 15 are actually not quite so easy to discern. Thus, Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 1; New York: Doubleday, 1964), 114, notes: “While this chapter shows no trace of the P source, it exhibits, nevertheless, for the first time in Genesis, other marked departures from the usual manner of J.”  See David Runia, “Secondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (ed. D. Hay; BJS 232; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 47– 79, esp. 51, who sees a reference to Gen 7:11 in a discussion of Gen 8:4 as a “borderline case” in Philo’s Questions and Answers and “not secondary in the sense I intend.” Runia’s study reveals that a certain degree of subjectivity exists in the application of criteria used for determining what is “contextual” and what is truly secondary in ancient exegesis.

56

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

closed with the same two nouns, παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι … τῷ ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Aβραάμ (Rom 4:16a). §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22 can be distinguished on syntactic grounds; the verses are comprised of two relative clauses and form a second unit, which I have titled a “hymn to Abraham.” §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a Rom 4:13 introduces four new themes which are unique to (§2) Rom 4:13 – 22. The promise (ἐπαγγελία) to Abraham and his σπέρμα (Rom 4:13, 16a, 18) that each will be κληρονόμος (Rom 4:13, 14) or “heir” of the land (here interpreted to mean the entire world) is said to come not through νόμος (Rom 4:13, 14, 15, 16) but through the righteousness of faith. Although God had already promised the land to Abraham’s seed in Gen 12:7 (cf. Gen 17:8, σοι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι σου), Abraham’s “inheritance” of the land is a new theme in Genesis 15. In fact, the verb κληρονομεῖν and its cognates occur nowhere in the Abraham Cycle outside Genesis 15 until Genesis 21. In Gen 15:3 and 4, Abraham himself is the object of the verb. It is only in Gen 15:7, 8 that the land becomes the explicit object of the inheritance, and it would seem that Paul drew the verb from these latter two verses. §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22 This section, as mentioned above, comprises a miniature hymn to Abraham. A similar encomium is found also in Sirach 44:19 – 23. The traditional Jewish character of the material in Rom 4:16b – 19 is widely recognized, even among scholars who do not attribute any sources to Paul.⁷¹ In Rom 4:20 – 21, however, the vocabulary of ἐπαγγελία returns and the addition of these verses is linked with the second relative clause of Rom 4:18 – 19 rather clumsily by the particle δέ. Thus, these latter verses may be a Pauline amplification of a traditional hymnic unit. Rom 4:22 concludes the second exegetical section and links it explicitly with the first section. Only here in the second exegetical section does the apostle resort again to explicit scriptural controls, in the form of two citation formulae employed in Rom 4:17 (καθὼς γέγραπται) and Rom 4:18 (κατὰ τὸ εἰρήμενον). These formulae introduce citations from Gen 17:5 and Gen 15:5, respectively. Unlike the previous three citation formulae which stood at the beginning of subsections in §1. Rom 4:3 – 12, these two formulae are embedded within relative clauses. At first blush, they do not seem to set the exegetical agenda for Rom 4:13 – 22, as the formulae in Rom 4:3, 6 and 9b did for Rom 4:3 – 12. They appear primarily to be part

 See especially the judgment of Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 196: “The parallels between Paul’s interpretation and that of a Greek-speaking Jewish interpretation become more numerous as we come to 4:17– 22, the very section which was regarded as specifically Pauline!”

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

57

of a hymnic amplification of the phrase πίστις ᾿Aβραάμ, which ends the preliminary argument of this section. A closer reading, however, reveals that Paul has in fact stitched §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a and §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22 together with the “thread” of these two cited verses. In particular, Paul’s claim in Rom 4:13, that the promise is both “to Abraham” and “to his seed” is exemplified in the two OT verses, cited in Rom 4:17 (Gen 17:5) and Rom 4:18 (Gen 15:5), respectively: Rom : ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ ᾿Aβραάμ Rom : ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ

Gen : πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε Gen : οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου

While Rom 4:13 speaks of the promise to Abraham and his seed in the third person, the cited texts use the second person singular, highlighting the direct address of scripture. The link between Gen 17:5 and Gen 15:5 also possesses and independent exegetical logic, as both phrases end with the second person singular pronoun. Rhetorically, this shift has the effect of personalizing the promise, using Abraham’s focalizing perspective and inviting the Roman Christian reader, Jew or Gentile, to hear through the ears of their father in faith. In Rom 4:13, Paul anticipates his use of the traditional exegesis found in Rom 4:17 and 18. As such, although Paul’s citation formulae do not govern §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a, the two texts cited in the following subsection (§2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22) hold the broader unit together. (§3) Rom 4:23 – 25 Paul cites the last words of Gen 15:6 for a final time in Rom 4:23. This citation is shorter than that in Rom 4:22, focusing primarily on the dative αὐτῷ. Additionally, Paul introduces Gen 15:6 with the aorist passive [οὐκ] ἐγράφη, a formula that he only uses three times in the undisputed epistles. In all three instances, the citation is given in the context of paraenesis involving the 1pl pronoun (δι’ ἡμᾶς [1 Cor 9:10, Rom 4:23], πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν [1 Cor 10:11]). The phrase thus presumably constitutes a usage “marked” for a particular purpose.⁷² Paul follows here the well-known hermeneutical principle of ὠφέλεια, “benefit” or “utility” to the current reader, which was one of the classical grounds for al-

 The same may be said of formulaic variation in Paul’s citation formulae as the Israeli linguist Haiim B. Rosén says of Hebrew verbs in “The Comparative Assignment of Certain Hebrew Tense Forms,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1969), 212: “the basic assumption in analytical procedure … [is] that functional difference must be presumed of any pair of formally different features unless or until the contrary (that is, synonymity, stylistic variation) is established by conclusive evidence.” Cited by Yadin, Scripture as Logos, 12.

58

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

legorical reading in antiquity.⁷³ One notes a strong typological and “genetic” element in this formula as well, as Paul signals his definitive reapplication of these narratives for the church at “the end of the ages” (1 Cor 10:11). This section brings Paul’s exegesis of the Abraham cycle into an explicitly Christological context, linking God’s resurrection of Jesus (Rom 4:24) with Isaac’s birth (and binding?) in Rom 4:17 and echoing the hymnic quality of Rom 4:16b – 21 in Rom 4:25. Paul thus connects this section closely with the foregoing exegesis in Rom 4:3 – 22, with Gen 15:6 constituting Paul’s primary exegetical focus throughout the pericope.

2.3.4 Implicit Scriptural Controls The previous section demonstrated Paul’s explicit control of the exegesis in §1. Rom 4:3 – 12 and §3. Rom 4:22– 25. In §2. Rom 4:13 – 22, by contrast, these explicit controls largely fall away. Although Paul does his best to structure the passage through his citations of Gen 17:5 and Gen 15:5, two questions remain: (1) Given the paucity of explicit Pauline controls in §2. Rom 4:13 – 22, does one find here any implicit scriptural controls, such as those discovered in Gal 4:21– 31, which might provide a structural key to Paul’s second section? (2) What is the relationship of §2. Rom 4:13 – 22, with its citations of Gen 17:5 and Gen 15:5, and §1. Rom 4:3 – 12, which is centered on Gen 15:6? One may answer the first question about implicit scriptural controls in the affirmative. In particular, Gen 17:17 and Gen 15:6 govern different parts of §2. Rom 4:13 – 22. I will treat these two implicit scriptural controls in turn. Gen 17:17 While Paul cites Gen 17:5 in Rom 4:17, another verse from that same chapter, Gen 17:17, exerts a surprising amount of implicit control over Rom 4:19. In fact, Rom 4:19 can fairly be described as a sequential interpretation of Gen 17:17, which echoes the language of that lemma at four particular points (Table 2.4 below).  See Mitchell, Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, 2: “What the ‘great apostle’ exemplifies for Gregory [of Nyssa] is strategic hermeneutical and terminological adaptability, as focused always on a single purpose: the utility for the hearer.” See also Adam Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed. idem; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 81, who notes: “the term opheleia (‘benefit’) in a literary critical context is derived from a Greek view or a Greek formulation of matters, but the idea expressed by the term is also Jewish, and certainly the ‘opheleia criterion’, or perhaps better the pan-scriptural opheleia criterion came to be operative in a Jewish sense.” As Kamesar notes, one finds the principle thematized in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim 3:16), which explicitly say that all scripture is beneficial, ὠφέλιμος.

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

59

Table 2.4: Rom 4:19 and Gen 17:17 Rom : (a) καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει (b) κατενόησεν (c) τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον, ἑκατονταετής που ὑπάρχων, (d) καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας

Gen : (a) καὶ ἔπεσεν A ᾿ βραὰμ ἐπὶ πρόσωπον καὶ ἐγέλασεν (b) καὶ εἶπεν ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ (c) εἰ τῷ ἑκατονταετεῖ γενήσεται υἱός, (d) καὶ Σάρρα ἐνενήκοτα ἐτῶν οὖσα τέξεται;

Paul’s adherence to the sequence and language of the text of Gen 17:17, as the table shows, cannot be accidental; rather it reflects an intentional and sophisticated act of exegesis. In (a), Paul tackles the problem of Abraham’s laughter, arguing that this response to God’s promise was not an act of doubt. Abraham did not waver (Rom 4:20), but believed. Other ancient exegetes in Paul’s day, including Philo of Alexandria, found a similar interpretive trigger in the “problem” of Abraham’s laughter and likewise set Gen 17:17 in dialogue with Gen 15:6.⁷⁴ Contrary to Paul, Philo admits that Abraham’s laughter may betoken “momentary doubt” (ἐνδοιασμός),⁷⁵—which might also be conceived of as a species of the same “faithlessness” (ἀπιστία) held by an “unbeliever” (ἀπιστῶν).⁷⁶ Lest I overemphasize the difference between Paul and Philo, however, the Alexandrian also argues that holding any human’s faithfulness to the standard of the faithfulness of God (Deut 32:4)—who does not waver even in mind—is to make an unfair comparison (Mut. 181– 187). Abraham’s ἐνδοιασμός does not make it to his lips and certainly not into his actions. Thus, it should not be held against him (Mut. 178). His is not ἀπιστία plain and simple, but merely the ἴχνος ἢ σκιὰν ἢ αὔραν [ὥραν] ἀπιστίας “trace or shadow or breath [moment] of doubt” (Mut. 181). Moreover, Philo introduces the active participle ἀπιστῶν into the discussion only in brief reference to an alternative interpretation of this passage, which holds that there is no “faithlessness” in Abraham’s laughter (Mut. 188). Thus, it seems that Philo was concerned to defend the primacy of Abraham’s πίστις in spite of his momentary ἐνδοιασμός, and tended in his own thought toward an interpretative tradition like Paul’s, which claimed that there was in fact no strong contradiction between Gen 17:17 and Gen 15:6. Paul’s second move is (b) to parse the awkward phrase “said in his mind” with the paraphrase κατενόησεν. Philo too, in Mut. 177, makes much of the mental aspect of Abraham’s speech. Paul’s third and fourth echoes of Gen 17:17 pick

 See Philo, Mut. 154– 201, esp. 175 – 92.  Philo, Mut. 177– 178.  Philo, Mut. 181, 188; cf. Rom 4:20.

60

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

up on (c) the adjective “one-hundred-year-old” and (d) Sarah’s name. In each case, Paul presents the physical ramifications of their ages: the impotence of Abraham’s necrotic “body” and Sarah’s necrotic “womb.” Paul’s fourfold interpretation of Gen 17:17 shows clearly how the text of scripture has exerted implicit control on the structure of Rom 4:19. Although this lemma was completely unannounced, it governs the verse. It is striking that Philo, likewise, treats (a) Abraham’s laughter (Mut. 154); (b) Abraham’s mental speech (Mut. 177); and (c and d) the respective ages of Abraham and Sarah (Mut. 188) in exactly the same biblical sequence as Paul—albeit in many more words! This confirms, nonetheless, the suggestion that in composing the exegesis in Rom 4:19, and perhaps Rom 4:16b – 19, Paul referred to a traditional commentary or prose hymn, which he incorporated either from memory or from a written source. This does not mean that Paul has not tailored that traditional material for this specific epistolary context. The scope of the scriptural control provided by Gen 17:17, however, is limited to this single verse. Neither it nor its combination with the broader narrative reaching back to Gen 17:5 provides the missing structural key to Rom 4:13 – 22 or even Rom 4:16b – 22. Gen 15:6 A second scriptural text, Gen 15:6, offers a more promising, if also more obvious, answer to the question of implicit scriptural controls in this section. Despite the heavy influence of Genesis 17 traditions in the second part of Paul’s argument, Gen 15:6 ultimately has the final word. In Rom 4:22, at the very end of this section, Paul quotes (sans formula) Gen 15:6b: “therefore it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” He omits the first part of the verse quoted in Rom 4:3. His selective citation, resulting in the absence of Abraham’s “faith” in Rom 4:22, suggests that this key theme may already have been commented upon by Paul in the preceding section. Thus, the whole of Rom 4:13 – 21, or at least Rom 4:16b – 21, constitutes a paraphrastic expansion on Gen 15:6a, “Abraham believed in God.” This suggestion finds support in the fact that in Rom 4:17 and 18, the aorist ἐπίστευσεν, the exact form from Gen 15:6a, occurs twice—the only two instances in Romans 4! “God,” likewise, occurs as the object of Abraham’s faith twice only in this section (Rom 4:17, 20), and nowhere else in this chapter. Thus, while πίστις does in a sense form the basso continuo of the entire chapter, the fact that Abraham “believed in God” comes into special focus in Rom 4:16b – 21, while the theme of “reckoning” recedes into the background. This observation, if it is correct, suggests that Gen 15:6 provides the structural backbone of the entire exegetical proof. Paul has commented upon it in reverse order, beginning with Gen 15:6b (“It was reckoned”) in §1. Rom 4:3 – 12 and then moving to Gen 15:6a (“Abraham believed in God”) in §2. Rom 4:13 – 21. The citation of Gen 15:5 in §2. Rom 4:18 further confirms the backward mo-

2.3 Rom 4:3 – 25

61

mentum of Paul’s exegetical process here, as the apostle works from the reckoning of righteousness (Gen 15:6b) to the patriarch’s faith and its guarantor (Gen 15:6a) and ultimately, to the guarantee itself (Gen 15:5). Having finished the main sweep of his exegesis, in §3. Rom 4:23 – 25, Paul returns to Gen 15:6b, this time focusing on the dative “to him” and expands it to refer to the present believing community.

2.3.5 Further Epistolary Controls: Rom 3:27 – 4:2 The foregoing exegetical analysis was able to explain §1. Rom 4:3 – 12 and §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22 as rooted in the exegesis of Gen 15:6. This, however, leaves §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a only tenuously attached, at least in terms of exegesis, to §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22 by way of the twofold promise to Abraham and his seed. Thus, just as Stowers’ dissertation showed that the structure of Romans 4 cannot be explained purely in terms of rhetorical theory (diatribe and exemplum), my study finds that exegetical commentary patterns cannot account for it entirely either. Together, however, rhetorical and exegetical features offer a solution to the enigma of Paul’s train of thought. The missing exegetical rationale for Rom 4:13 – 16a, I suggest, turns up in reading §1. – §2.1 Rom 4:1– 16a as a sequential “commentary” on the diatribal argument of Rom 3:27– 31. To state the evidence succinctly: Rom 4:1– 2 picks up the key theme of Rom 3:27a, “boasting” (καύχησις; καύχημα). Rom 4:4– 8 then interprets Gen 15:6 in light of the πίστις/ἔργα dichotomy of Rom 3:27b – 28. The introduction of circumcision and uncircumcision in Rom 4:9 – 12 verbally and thematically echoes the ethnic concerns of Rom 3:29 – 30. This provides a rationale for why Paul has interpreted “reckoning” in the three different ways he has. It remains to be seen whether Rom 4:13 – 22 similarly “comments” on Rom 3:31. The answer to this question, posed of the entire second section, is no. However, the case can be made that §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a “comments” on Rom 3:31, on two grounds. First, doing so would explain Paul’s sudden introduction of the noun νόμος into his exegesis at this point. Second, and more centrally, Rom 4:13 – 16a echoes a tension found also in Rom 3:31: the question of the status of the law and those who adhere to it in the wake of the Pauline gospel. In Rom 3:31 Paul argues that his gospel of universal justification apart from the keeping of certain Jewish halakhic requirements (“works of the law”) does not negate the νόμος per se; rather, it upholds it. Rom 4:13 – 16a reiterates this dynamic in an extended form. Its initial proclamation (Rom 4:13) that the promise is not διὰ νόμου but διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως raises the possibility that the law should be annulled (cf. Rom 3:31a). Rom 4:16a, by contrast, speaks

62

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

of the promise as secure to “all the seed, not only to the one who is from the law (ἐκ νόμου) but also to the one who is from the faith of Abraham (ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Aβραάμ).” Much ink has been spilled on the soteriological significance of Rom 4:16a for the Israel question and this is not the place to enter that discussion. What does seem clear is that Paul wants to uphold the law in Rom 4:16a in a way similar to the way he does in Rom 3:31. Rom 4:13 – 16a thus concludes Paul’s commentary on Rom 3:27– 31. Hence we can draw up the following schema (Table 2.5): Table 2.5: Epistolary Controls in Rom 4:1 – 16a Rom Rom Rom Rom

: –  : –  : –  : – a

Comment Comment Comment Comment

on on on on

Rom Rom Rom Rom

:a :b –  : –  :

This pattern of epistolary control explains the logic of (§1–§2.1) Rom 4:3 – 16a, whereas the exegetical analysis explained the logic of (§1, §2.2– §3) Rom 4:3 – 12, 16b – 25. The interlocking patterns of control are illustrated in Table 2.6 below. Table 2.6: Exegetical and Epistolary Controls in Rom 4:3 – 25 Exegetical Control

Epistolary Control

§ Rom : – 

Comment on Gen :b (ἐλογίσθη) Secondary lemma: LXX Ps : – 

§. Rom : – a

Promise to Abraham (Gen : in §.) Promise to seed (Gen : in §.) Comment on Gen :a (ἐπίστευσεν) Contextualizing lemma: Gen : Contextualizing lemma: Gen : Comment on Gen :b (αὐτῷ)

Comment Comment Comment Comment

§. Rom :b – 

§ Rom : – 

on on on on

Rom :a Rom :b –  Rom : –  Rom : —

—

The combination of exegetical and rhetorical controls solves the Pauline puzzle. On the one hand, §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a is organically related to §1. Rom 4:3 – 12 as a part of Paul’s exegetical “explication” of the diatribal introduction (Rom 3:27– 31). §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a and §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22 are linked by a double exegetical bond. Not only does the twofold promise in §2.1 Rom 4:13 – 16a mirror the two contextualizing lemmata of §2.2 Rom 4:16b – 22, but the theme of Abraham’s “faith” in Rom 4:16a links the two sections as coordinated interpretations of Gen 15:6a.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

63

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13 Galatians and Romans, despite being written to different churches, form a natural pair in this study due to their common use of Abrahamic traditions. In turning to the “midraschartige Stücke” of 1 Cor 10:1– 13 and 2 Cor 3:7– 18, we shift our attention to Paul’s other two undisputed Hauptbriefe, which together, along with at least one lost letter, comprise the Corinthian Correspondence.⁷⁷ This turn brings with it a shift in the focus of Paul’s exegetical attention, from the Abraham cycle of Genesis to the narratives about Moses and the Israelites in the last four books of the Pentateuch. The relative prominence of Moses in Paul’s epistolary exegesis in these letters, as a matter of method, should first simply be observed. The thesis that Apollos or the “super-apostles” (in 2 Corinthians) have introduced particular Hellenizing Moses traditions to the church Paul founded is a point which, however plausible, will have to be considered later. It cannot be presumed at the outset with any more certainty than one claims Paul to have introduced Abraham,

 Partitioning and reconstructing the Corinthian correspondence remains one of the most exciting, enduring, and often infuriating puzzles besetting Pauline scholarship. With regard to 1 Corinthians, while many, following the rhetorical study of Margaret Mitchell (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: an Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993]), accept the unity of Paul’s first canonical letter, a variety of partition theories, such as the relatively simple division of Gerhard Sellin, “Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes,” ANRW 2.25.4 (1987): 2964– 86, are still held. For a fulsome overview of the various positions, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 36 – 41. The question of the unity of 2 Corinthians represents a far more disputed field. Most prominent among a host of options are a five-letter partition (e. g. Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul [ed. George W. MacRae; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985]; Margaret Mitchell, “Paul’s Letters to Corinth: the Interpretive Intertwining of Literary and Historical Reconstruction,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches [ed. D. N. Showalter and S. J. Friesen; HTS 53; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005], 307– 38), a three-letter partition (e. g. Johann S. Semler, Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthos [Halle: Hemmerde, 1776]; Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [ICC 34; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994]); a two-letter division (Furnish, II Corinthians; Tatum, New Chapters), and, more recently, a return to a single letter hypothesis (Fredrick J. Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians [SNTSMS 131; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004]; Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007]; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “The Unity of 2 Corinthians as Reflected in the Account of Paul’s and Titus’ Travels Between Ephesus, Macedonia and Corinth and the Theology of 2:14– 7:4,” paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 19 November 2011).

64

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Sarah, and Hagar in Galatians because the teachers had already shared their exegesis of certain texts.⁷⁸ One can say, however, that the presence of a common exegetical subject matter in both of these epistles (or collection of letters in the case of 2 Corinthians) addressed to the same church suggests the importance of the Moses cycle in the Corinth in the mid-first century, regardless of who introduced this theme.⁷⁹ This remarkable fact consequently suggests that the patterns of exegesis in these two letters to Corinth might also share other common features. Richard Hays, commenting on 1 Corinthians 10, has drawn attention to this phenomenon: “Formally, 2 Cor. 3:7– 18 resembles 1 Cor 10:1– 13—an allusive homily based on biblical incidents—more closely than it resembles passages such as Romans 4 ….”⁸⁰ I would highlight, additionally, the relative paucity of citation formulae in 1 Cor 10:1– 13 and 2 Cor 3:7– 18 (one total), over and against the nine (total) found in Gal 4:21– 5:1 and Rom 4:3 – 25. It is the task of the next two sections (2.4 and 2.5) to ask just how similar Paul’s patterns of exegesis are in these two canonical letters. In due course, despite initial impressions to the contrary, I will argue that these two Pauline exegeses of Mosaic texts in the Corinthian Correspondence have less in common with one another than has sometimes been claimed.

2.4.1 The Exegetical Pattern While 1 Cor 10:1– 13 does not appear at first blush to comment upon a single verse or pair of verses like Galatians or Romans, Wayne Meeks has made the argument that Exod 32:6 (1 Cor 10:7) essentially holds the structural key to this homiletic “midrash.”⁸¹ In the following table (Table 2.7 below), I draw on Meeks’s suggestion and refer the reader to section 2.4.4 below for a fuller list of scriptural intertexts and a partially critical assessment of Meeks’s proposal.  Georgi, Opponents, makes this argument for 2 Cor 3:7– 18, followed recently by Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology; Martyn, Galatians, 436, has argued similarly in the case of Galatians 4:21– 5:1.  Moses is only explicitly named a handful of times in Paul. See 1 Cor 9:8 – 9 and 2 Cor 3:7, 13, 15 for further references in the Corinthian correspondence. Moses appears with a similar frequency in Romans (Rom 5:14; 9:15; 10:5, 19). This does not exhaust Paul’s use of Mosaic traditions. See, e. g., M. David Litwa, “Paul’s Mosaic Ascent: an Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12.7– 9,” NTS 57 (2011): 238 – 57.  Hays, Echoes, 132.  Wayne Meeks, “‘And Rose Up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1– 22.” JSNT 16 (1982): 64– 78.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

65

Table 2.7: Exegetical Pattern of 1 Cor 10:1 – 13  Cor : –   Cor :  Cor :  Cor : – a  Cor :bc  Cor : –   Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor : – 

“Blessed events” of the Exodus, under the scriptural heading of Exod :a (ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν) Paraphrase of Exod :, : (et al.) Actualizing gloss: That is, all were baptized into Moses Paraphrase of Exod :, : –  (et al.) Actualizing gloss: That is, they (ate and) drank from Christ Five warnings to the Israelites, under the scriptural heading of Exod :b (καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν) Paraphrase of Num : (et al.) Citation of Exod : Paraphrase of Num : –  (et al.) Paraphrase of Num : –  (et al.) Paraphrase of Num : – ; : –  (et al.) Paraenetic exhortation and word of encouragement, interpreting the paraphrases of  Cor : and :.

2.4.2 The Pericope The pericope begins at 1 Cor 10:1. Paul moves somewhat abruptly from his athletic metaphors of a runner competing in a stadium and of a boxer to a exegetical paraenesis on the dangers of being connected with idol worship, apparently resuming his response to the Corinthians’ inquiry περὶ εἰδωλοθύτον begun at 1 Cor 8:1.⁸² After the apostolic apology of 1 Corinthians 9 (see esp. 1 Cor 9:3), Paul returns to the presenting issue of food offered to idols (1 Cor 8:3, βρῶσις; 1 Cor 8:8, βρῶμα; 1 Cor 10:3, βρῶμα). Wolfgang Schrage’s opening comment on this section in his recent monumental commentary, “Paulus [führt] den Korinthern midra-

 The transition may not be as abrupt as it first appears. If Paul was thinking here of the Isthmian games, with their attendant sacrifices at the sanctuary of Poseidon, a link between athletics and idol worship clearly emerges. The possibility that Paul is thinking of the games and their sacrifices is heightened by the likelihood that the Isthmian games were actually being held in Corinth when Paul visited and did not return to Isthmia until Nero’s principate. See Elizabeth R. Gebhard, “The Isthmian Games and the Sanctuary of Poseidon in the Early Empire,” in Corinthia in the Roman Period (ed. Timothy E. Gregory; Journal of Roman Archeology Supplementary Series 8; Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archeology, 1993), 78 – 94.

66

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

schartig das warnendende Beispiel der Wüstengeneration vor Augen” (emphasis added), testifies to the enduring influence of Windisch’s analysis.⁸³ Determining the end of the pericope presents a greater challenge, though not an insurmountable one. Johannes Weiß, while recognizing the chapter as a unit, considers 1 Cor 10:1– 5 an exegesis that can be viewed independently.⁸⁴ Schrage (borrowing his terminology from Weiß) looks a bit wider and focuses on 10:1– 13 as a “warnende(s) Beispiel.”⁸⁵ Broadening the frame yet further, Joseph Fitzmyer has argued vigorously that 10:1– 22 must be treated as a unit.⁸⁶ Given the exegetical interests of this study, I will focus on 1 Cor 10:1– 13. While Fitzmyer is certainly correct in arguing that 10:1– 22 belongs together, several lexical and rhetorical features demarcate 10:1– 13 as a subunit. First, in 1 Cor 10:14– 11:1, there is a more pronounced return to the explicit argument and vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 8. Second, in 1 Cor 10:16 – 17, Paul introduces a second “text” of sorts: an early Eucharistic formula, which (rather than the biblical exempla) becomes the topic of his commentary. Third, as Meeks has pointed out, the paraenetic message of 1 Cor 10:13 differs significantly from the message of 1 Cor 10:14.⁸⁷ Thus, while keeping 1 Cor 10:14– 11:1 in view, I will treat primarily the former part of the chapter. Weiß’s delimitation of 1 Cor 10:1– 5 as a unit will be weighed in the exegesis below.

 Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12 – 11,16) (EKKNT 7/2; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1991– 2001), 381; cf. 382: “V 1– 5 bieten zunächst eine midraschartige Auslegung verschiedener Pentateuchstellen.”  Weiß, Korintherbrief, 250.  Schrage, Erste Brief, 380. See also Wayne Meeks, “And Rose Up to Play.”  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 379. See also Richard Hays, “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1– 24; originally published under the same title in NTS 45 (1999): 391– 412. See esp. 10: “The Pentateuchal imagery is not confined to verses 1– 13; Paul sustains it through verse 22.”  Meeks, “And Rose up to Play,” 71; see Ibid. 65, for the judgment that “verses 1– 13 are a literary unit, very carefully composed prior to its use in its present context. For convenience’s sake I shall call it a homily.” Schrage, Erste Brief, 383, while ruling out Jeske’s speculative reconstruction and Habermann’s skepticism of the passage’s authenticity, admits that proposals like those of Barret and Meeks remain open for discussion. See Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Harper’s New Testament Commentary; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 220; and R. L. Jeske, “The Rock was Christ: The Ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians 10,” in Kirche: Festschrift for G. Bornkamm (ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 245 – 55, esp. 251.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

67

2.4.3 Explicit Pauline Controls Paul uses fewer explicit exegetical controls in his major “midraschartige Stücke” in the Corinthian correspondence than he did in either Galatians or Romans. In 1 Cor 10:1– 13, Paul uses only one citation formula (1 Cor 10:7) and one application formula (1 Cor 10:11). As in previous analyses, I will begin with these two explicit controls and then move to the implicit control offered by biblical texts. §1. 1 Cor 10:1– 10 Meeks, followed by Fitzmyer, has illustrated how this section represents a tightly woven and carefully balanced rhetorical unit. The five positive experiences of “all the fathers” (πάντες) in 1 Cor 10:1b – 5 are offset by the five sins of the wilderness generation in 1 Cor 10:6 – 10.⁸⁸ While many scholars see 1 Cor 10:6 – 11 as circumscribed by an inclusio (τύποι: 1 Cor 10:6 :: τυπικῶς 1 Cor 10:11), I think it better to see 1 Cor 10:6 and 1 Cor 10:11 each as the beginning of a separate interpretive unit. This also means that the entire pericope (1 Cor 10:1– 13) can be subdivided with reference to the two formulae in 1 Cor 10:7 and 1 Cor 10:11. Meeks and Fitzmyer, however, go too far by suggesting that the five occurrences of πάντες in 1 Cor 10:1– 5 are perfectly offset by the five indefinites (1 Cor 10:5: τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν; τινες [4x] in 1 Cor 10:7, 8, 9, 10) in 1 Cor 10:6 – 10. In the first place, τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν belongs to the first section (1 Cor 10:1– 5) rather than the second section (1 Cor 10:6 – 10). Their count also conveniently overlooks κἀκεῖνοι in 1 Cor 10:6 (cf. 1 Cor 10:11), which is part of the latter unit (§1.2) and is not indefinite. The balance between the two sections, while undeniable, should not be pressed too far. Furthermore, while the modulation between “all” and “some” in 1 Cor 10:1– 5 and 6 – 10 does reflect Paul’s rhetoric a few verses earlier (1 Cor 9:22b), Weiß’s source-critical differentiation of the first section (1 Cor 10:1– 5) helps make sense of some significant shifts of style and organization between it and the subsequent verses. It seems at least possible, then, that Paul has here woven together two traditional exegetical units. §1.1 1 Cor 10:1 – 5 Paul uses no explicit quotation formulae in this first section. All five of the so-called “blissful events” in the wilderness are simply introduced with πάντες and stated paraphrastically.⁸⁹ Verses 1– 2 are linked through their common elements (cloud and sea). Verses 3 – 4a likewise form a couplet, βρῶμα and πόμα, whose common modification with the adjectives πνευματικόν “spiritu Meeks, “And Rose up to Play,” 65; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 379.  Karl-Gustav Sandelin, “Does Paul Argue Against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10.1– 14?” in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (ed. P. Borgen and S. Giversen; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995), 165 – 82, esp. 167.

68

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

al” and αὐτό “same” set them apart as a pair. Although there are five πάντες statements, what we actually find are two couplets: cloud and sea, food and drink. An additional question pertinent to Paul’s exegetical structure in this section is whether 1 Cor 10:4c constitutes an epexegetical “gloss.” Conzelmann, Fitzmyer, and especially Schrage, rightly keen to defend a notion of Christological preexistence here, downplay the exegetical aspect of this statement. They claim that the imperfect ἦν diverges from the normal gloss or pesheresque form, which uses instead the present tense ἐστίν.⁹⁰ I see no real tension between these options, however, and prefer to read 1 Cor 10:4c as a gloss which Paul has “historicized” to meet the needs of this typological exegesis. It is precisely the backward flow of Paul’s interpretation, which Schrage so clearly articulates,⁹¹ that necessitates the shift of tense. Paul is, so to speak, writing a pesher in the past tense. If this is the case, Paul does implicitly control the interpretation in this portion of the exegesis, even as that control remains formulaically unmarked. This exegetical control extends only to the last two blissful events, but leaves the former two unexplained. Does Paul offer a similar gloss of the first two events? Attending to the duplication of cloud and sea (as mentioned in the introduction) in 1 Cor 10:2 suggests an answer in the affirmative. If the opening καί of 1 Cor 10:2 is read epexegetically (“that is”) rather than conjunctively (“and”), then the following implicit, pesheresque structure emerges: Table 2.8: Exegetical Pattern of 1 Cor 10:1 – 5    

Cor Cor Cor Cor

: : : – a :bc

Paraphrase: All were under the cloud and went through the sea. Actualizing Gloss: That is, all were baptized into Moses. Paraphrase: All ate and drank the spiritual sustenance in the wilderness. Actualizing Gloss: That is, they (ate and) drank from Christ.

Although the references to Moses and Christ in 1 Cor 10:2 and 1 Cor 10:4c create a perplexing imbalance, a twofold, sacramental structure emerges quite clearly (Baptism and Eucharist). This confirms the initial suspicion that 1 Cor 10:1– 5 entails a fourfold rather than five-fold pattern, governed by implicit authorial exegetical controls.

 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Dunkly; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975 [1969]), 204; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 383; and Schrage, Erste Brief, 395. Cf. CD 6.4; Philo, Leg. 2.86; Gal 4:25; and 2 Cor 3:17 for the usual pattern with the copula in the present tense.  Schrage, Erste Brief, 391.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

69

§1.2 1 Cor 10:6 – 10 Both Weiß and Schrage distinguish the second part of the “homily” from the first, calling it no longer a “midrash” but an “application” or a set of “corresponding admonitions.”⁹² This section is less perfectly balanced than the first part. Rather than five instances of τινες to balance the five πάντες, Paul begins with κἄκεινοι in the first wilderness sin (1 Cor 10:6), followed by four instances of τινες. The demonstrative is echoed at the beginning of the third section (1 Cor 10:11, ἐκείνοις). This imbalance is further highlighted by the fact that the first negative command is neither imperative (1 Cor 10:7, 10) nor hortatory subjunctive (1 Cor 10:8, 9), but indirectly stated in a result clause (1 Cor 10:6).⁹³ 1 Cor 10:6 is also the only one of the five wilderness sins where the specific context cannot be determined.⁹⁴ While one could connect it with the Israelite desire for meat rather than manna (Num 11:4; Ps 77:29, 30; Philo Spec. 4.126), the objective genitive κακῶν suggests that Paul may have “desire” or “lust” more generally in view rather than the specific “fleshpots” of Egypt.⁹⁵ Godet, Schlatter, and others are right that “desire” in 1 Cor 10:6 stands as one heading or “Oberbegriff” for the four sins listed below.⁹⁶ These imbalances provide stylistic variatio, marking the beginning of the new section and keeping the paraenesis from becoming structurally stale.  Weiß, Korintherbrief, 252: “Anwendung”; Schrage, Erste Brief, 382: “entsprechende Mahnungen”; Ibid., 397: “Anwendung.” Most scholars, however, end this subsection with 1 Cor 10:11 rather than 1 Cor 10:10.  Schrage, Erste Brief, 386 confirms this enumeration.  Pace Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 138, n. 439, who claims the support of Weiß, 1 Cor 10:5 – 6 does not make use of a composite allusion to Num 11:4. As the structural exegesis here makes clear, 1 Cor 10:5 and 6 are part of different subsections.  So Schrage, Erste Brief, 397; Weiß, Korintherbrief, 252. For ἐπιθυμία as Oberbegriff in Philo, see especially Spec. 4.84 and Leg. 3.116 (along with θύμος). Similarly, in the Valentinian Ap. John 18.14– 17, ἐπιθυμία is linked with one of the four “leading demons” and serves as the heading for several vices, including wrath , anger , bitterness , “bitter eros” / lust , greed , and others which are left unspecified (Ap. John 18.26 – 29).  Arguing against this suggestion is the fact that εἰδωλολατρία (10:7), like ἐπιθυμία (10:6), is also a prohibition in the Decalogue (cf. Exod 20:4– 5; 17). If Paul knew the Jewish halakhic tradition, preserved in Philo’s De specialibus legibus, of making each of the commands of the Decalogue genera under which other laws could be grouped in a legal taxonomy (See Decal. 19 and 51; and Spec. 1.1), it might be odd to have εἰδωλολατρία grouped “under” ἐπιθυμία. On the other hand, see Spec. 4.84: τοσοῦτον ἄρα καὶ οὕτως κακὸν ὑπερβάλλον ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία, μᾶλλον δ’, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ἁπάντων πηγὴ τῶν κακῶν. This would argue in favor of reading Paul’s ἐπιθυμία in as a kind of heading. Paul may have even intended to establish two heads for his catalogue, drawing “desire” from Moses’ second table and “idolatry” from the first. For further discussion, see Schrage, Erste Brief, 397, n. 84.

70

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

The citation of Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7, introduced by the typically Pauline formula ὥσπερ γέγραπται, stands out as yet another imbalance in (§1.2) 1 Cor 10:6 – 10—as well as within the exegesis as a whole. This is the first and only citation formula used by Paul in (§1.1– 1.2) 1 Cor 10:1– 10. Moreover, only 1 Cor 10:7 of the five negative exempla in (§1.2) 1 Cor 10:6 – 10 draws on Exodus rather than Numbers. Why has Paul highlighted this specific verse, citing it alone in his primarily allusive homily? In an important article, Meeks suggests that the citation of Exod 32:6, far from being a mere prooftext, plays a structural role in the exegesis, linking the first part of the exhortation (§1.1) 1 Cor 10:1– 5 with the application (§1.2) 1 Cor 10:6 – 10. “The people sat down to eat and drink” (ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν) points back to the eating and drinking of 1 Cor 10:3 – 4; whereas “and rose up to play,” καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν, refers to the various rebellions listed in 1 Cor 10:6 – 11.⁹⁷ The “uprising” (ἀνέστησαν) of the people undoubtedly carries the additional connotation of civic stasis, a rhetorical theme which permeates 1 Corinthians.⁹⁸ The verbs “eat” and “drink” likewise occur in the same sequence in 1 Cor 10:7 as they do in 1 Cor 10:3, 4, respectively. Moreover, as the analysis of Rom 4:13 – 22 revealed, Paul sometimes governs the beginning an interpretation through citations later on, as the sequence “to Abraham and his seed” in Rom 4:13 was governed by the citation of Gen 17:5 in Rom 4:17 and Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:19. Hence, I am convinced by Meeks’s proposal; it helps explain Paul’s explicit control of the final form of the exegesis in 1 Cor 10:1– 10. Meeks’s article also raises a question, already touched on in the foregoing analysis: does 1 Cor 10:6 (ἐπιθυμία) or 1 Cor 10:7 (εἰδωλολατρία) present the unifying principle behind these negative exempla? Or are we wrong, as Heikki Räisänen has argued, to seek a halakhic or exegetical structure for the paraenesis? ⁹⁹ Or, as Mitchell argues, might we find instead an underlying socio-political indictment of stasis or rebellion as the link binding Paul’s catalogue of sins?¹⁰⁰ Clearly there is room for further discussion and argument here. In my estimation, however, the fact that Paul’s only biblical citation in 1 Cor 10:1– 10 illustrates the theme of εἰδωλολατρία (1 Cor 10:7); that Paul repeats the prohibition of idolatry at the beginning of his next rhetorical section (1 Cor 10:14: φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας); and that Exod 32:6 has the ability, at least superficially, to link both parts of the homily (Meeks) cumulatively suggest that, in Paul’s final

 Meeks, “Rose up to Play,” 69.  Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, passim.  Heikki Räisänen, “Zum Gebrauch von ΕΠΙΘΥΜΙΑ und ΕΠΙΘΥΜΕΙΝ bei Paulus,” StTh 33 (1979): 85 – 99.  Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 140.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

71

composition, idolatry was the unifying concern of 1 Cor 10:1– 13. On this reading, ἐπιθυμία, as the root of idolatry, grounds this specifically Jewish charge in a vice more recognizable in Greco-Roman ethics.¹⁰¹ 1 Cor 10:7 thus provides the key to unlocking the exegetical structure of the homily, at the level of its final redaction. There is, moreover, a rhetorical parallelism between the eating and drinking of 1 Cor 10:1b – 5 and 1 Cor 10:14– 17 and between the historical sins of 1 Cor 10:6 – 11 and the idolatry described in 1 Cor 10:18 – 22. As such, 1 Cor 10:7 exerts a kind of structural force on the entire chapter. 1 Cor 10:7, however, was probably not the generative impulse behind the exegesis (1 Cor 10:1– 5); more likely, this verse was introduced later as a unifying stitch in Paul’s redactional composition. While Exod 32:6 can explain the sacramental eating and drinking, it completely ignores the rich images of the cloud and the sea (1 Cor 10:1– 2) and the theme of baptism; it therefore overlooks the implicit exegetical structure of 1 Cor 10:1– 5. Moreover, the eating and drinking of Exod 32:6, on Meeks’s reading, must point solely to the “spiritual” eating and drinking of the wilderness generation in 1 Cor 10:3 – 4; however, the literal sense of this verse points to the idolatrous feasting at the foot of Sinai—Paul’s precise concern in 1 Corinthians 8 – 10! In the context of this negative catalogue, it seems odd to read the verse as both salubrious and idolatrous eating. The Corinthians, in other words, like the Israelites, cannot have their idol meat and eat it too. These considerations thus suggest that there are other implicit scriptural controls governing Paul’s exegetical argument here; 1 Cor 10:7 cannot bear all the weight. §1.3 1 Cor 10:11 – 13 Paul uses a second formula in 1 Cor 10:11, ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν. As mentioned above in the discussion of Rom 4:23, Paul seems to reserve the aorist of γράφειν for paraenetic applications. This concluding paraenetic section of the homily provides a closing application. The command in 1 Cor 10:12, “look out that you do not fall” (βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ) echoes the falling (ἔπεσαν) of those who fornicated in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:8). 1 Cor 10:13 then echoes the command not to “put Christ to the test as some of them tried [him]” (ἐπείρασαν; 1 Cor 10:9). Paul here subtly modifies the idea of trial to reflect not human testing of God, but God’s testing of the eschatological wilderness generation (1 Cor 10:13: πειρασμός, πειρασθῆναι, πειρασμῷ).¹⁰² Such was God’s re-

 For an excellent, detailed study of ἐπιθυμία in Philo and Greco-Roman ethics, with implications for the potential influence of this tradition on Paul in Rom 7:7, 13:9, see Hans Svebakken, Philo of Alexandria’s Exposition on the Tenth Commandment (SPhAM 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).  See also Matt 6:13, also in the context of an eschatological Moses tradition.

72

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

sponse to the first wilderness generation as well (Exod 16:4), as a result of their grumbling (διαγογγύζειν Exod 16:2; cf. 1 Cor 10:10) about food. Following this warning about the reciprocal outcome of testing God, the homily closes with a word of assurance about God’s faithfulness (cf. Deut. 32:4c). Paul’s explicit, sequential reference to two of the wilderness temptations (1 Cor 10:8, 9) in (§1.3) 1 Cor 10:11– 13 has important implications for the structure of the foregoing passage. The subject of ἐγράφη (1 Cor 10:11) is undoubtedly ταῦτα, and refers to the entire list of prohibitions in (§1.2) 1 Cor 10:6 – 10, if not to the “blessed events” of the first exegetical section (1 Cor 10:13 ἔκβασις ≈ ἐξαγωγή?) as well. As opposed to Rom 4:23, where the aorist ἐγράφη referred to part of a single verse (Gen 15:6), ἐγράφη in 1 Cor 10:11 points back not to a single verse (Exod 32:6) but to a string of scriptural exempla. This confirms our suspicion that the unifying structural principle of Paul’s exegesis exceeds the single citation formula (1 Cor 10:7).

2.4.4 Implicit Scriptural Controls If Exod 32:6 does not account for all the scriptural exempla in 1 Cor 10:1– 10, neither, it would appear, does any other single verse. Rather, Paul appears to be selectively retelling the wilderness narrative, paraphrasing the pentateuchal prose narratives themselves, as well as serveral poetic passages. Some scholars, such as Richard Hays, Karl-Gustav Sandelin, and Diana Swancutt, have suggested that Paul’s primary ordering principle in 1 Cor 10:1– 10 is in fact to be found in the narrative patterns of psalms and wisdom songs. As Sandelin succinctly puts it: Paul’s words are … [to be] explained as part of a traditional pattern, which the apostle uses. This pattern, found in several Old Testament and Jewish texts, sees the apostasy of the people against the beneficent Acts of God.¹⁰³

This hypothesis garners some credibility from the fact that Paul’s exempla echo the accounts of the wilderness generation in various poetic and wisdom texts like Deuteronomy 32, LXX Psalm 77 and 104, and Wisdom of Solomon. The notion that the Israelites were “under the cloud,” ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην (1 Cor 10:1), for instance, finds its nearest counterpart in the Wis 10:7, where the cloud “overshadows the camp,” ἡ τὴν παρεμβολὴν σκιάζουσα νεφέλη and forms a kind of “covering” σκέπη (Wis 19:7). That the Israelites “passed through,” διῆλθον the

 Sandelin, “Sacramentalism,” 181.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

73

sea likewise finds its best parallel in Wis 19:8 (δι’ οὗ πανεθνεὶ διῆλθον; cf. LXX Ps 77:13). A more complete list of parallels from both the Torah and the Writings is give in Table 2.9 below. As this synopsis demonstrates, Paul’s exempla do not follow one single narrative, but offer something of a pastiche, echoing various scriptural accounts. Table 2.9: 1 Cor 10:1 – 11 and OT Parallels  Cor : – 

OT Parallels



(Α) νεφέλη: Exod : LXX Ps : LXX Ps : Wis : Wis : οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν: LXX Ps :,  – ,  (B) θαλάσση: Exod :, ; :, b; LXX Ps : Wis :; : (C) No parallel

οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην καὶ

πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον



καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσθησαν ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ  καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν βρῶμα ἔφαγον

(D) βρῶμα: Exod : Deut : LXX Ps :,  – ,  (βρῶσις), LXX Ps : Wis :b, ; : Neh : (manna and spirit)  καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα (E) πόμα: Exod : –  Num : –  [LXX Ps : – ] ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολούθουσης πέτρας, (E) πέτρα: Exod : ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός. LXX Ps : –  LXX Ps : LXX Ps : Wis : Isa : Neh :  ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός, ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ: LXX : εὐδοκεῖν: Jer :, ; Ps :; Sir : κατεστρώθησαν γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. καταστορέννυμι: Num :,  (κατέστρωσεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ)  ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν,

74

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

 Cor : – 

OT Parallels

εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν,

(F) ἐπιθυμία: Num : LXX Ps :,  LXX Ps :  μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε καθώς τινες αὐτῶν, (G) Exod :: ἐκαθίσεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν ὥσπερ γέγραπται· “ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν καὶ πιεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν. καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν.”  μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπορνεύσαν (H) Num : –  (τέσσαρες καὶ εἴκοσι και ἔπεσαν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἴκοσι τρεῖς χιλιάδες. χιλιάδες) Cf. Num : for τρεῖς καὶ εἴκοσι χιλιάδες  μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν, καθώς τινες αὐῶν (I) ἐκπειράζειν: LXX Ps :,  ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπωλλύντο. Deut : Exod : – ; : –  ὄφεις: *Num : –  Exod ,   μηδὲ γογγύζετε, καθάπερ τινὲς αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν (J) (δια)γογγύζειν: Num : –  καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ. Num : –  Exod :, , ,  ὀλοθρεύτης: Exod : Wis : Hab :

A careful study of the major scriptural exempla in 1 Cor 10:1– 10 shows that Paul employs a very different pattern here than the ones I have analyzed in Galatians and Romans. Rather than focusing on one or two verses from Genesis, the homily in 1 Corinthians 10 covers the material treated in several books of the Pentateuch, verbally alluding to specific passages or incidents. The compressed narrations in the various poetic psalm and wisdom texts have clearly exerted influence on Paul’s composition. However, the pentateuchal prose narratives play a role as well. In what follows, I will consider these two kinds of influence separately. First, the quotation from Exodus in 1 Cor 10:7 makes it clear that Paul has the pentateuchal texts in mind. It is important to note that the structure of the pentateuchal narrative exercises a different degree of control in the two parts of the homily. In the initial paraphrastic exegesis (1 Cor 1:1b – 5), Paul closely follows the sequence of Exodus (Exod 13:21, 14:22, 16:4, 17:1– 6) in enumerating the four “blessed events” of the wilderness generation and closes the section with an echo of Num 14:16. The five “warnings” (1 Cor 10:6 – 10), by contrast, allude primarily to Numbers, with the one exception from Exodus, and do not follow the pentateuchal sequence (Num 11:4, Exod 32:6, Num 25:1– 9, Num 21:4– 9,

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

75

Num 14:36 – 37; Num 16:11– 35). This disparity between the pentateuchal controls on Paul in the two parts of this passage heightens one’s suspicion that the two parts of the “homily” do not share a common form or exegetical pattern and that 1 Cor 10:1:1b – 5 may stem from an independent exegetical tradition. Thus, while the pentateuchal prose references provide some structure, Paul’s language often echoes or alludes to elements from poetic and wisdom texts which find no counterpart in the prose diction of the Pentateuch. The clear echo of LXX Psalm 77 in 1 Cor 10:1b suggests that Paul had recourse to these alternative wilderness narratives, as “our fathers told (διηγήσαντο) them to us” (LXX Ps 77:3). To help consider the role of these poetic passages, in Table 2.13 (see section 2.7, “Additional Tables,” below), I have provided a structural synopsis of 1 Cor 10:1– 10, with the primary pentateuchal texts and five poetic/wisdom accounts of the wilderness narratives from the OT set out in synoptic columns. In this table, I have cited verses in square brackets [] which contain related material, but are not echoed or alluded to by Paul. Of the five poetic/wisdom texts cited in the table, several scholars, including Meeks, Sandelin, Hays, and Swancutt, have claimed that Deuteronomy 32 exercises influence on Paul’s structure in 1 Corinthians 10.¹⁰⁴ Looking at the evidence on the table, however, one is hard-pressed to find even one point of allusive connection between the song and 1 Cor 10:1– 10. There are, in fact, two points of contact between them: the wilderness πέτρα of LXX Deut 32:13 and 1 Cor 10:4 and the εἰδωλ- root in Deut 32:21 and 1 Cor 10:7. In light of the seemingly tenuous connection between these texts, what accounts for so much scholarly interest in Deuteronomy 32 as an OT influence on 1 Cor 10:1– 13? Two arguments are usually marshaled. First, Meeks, Hays, and Swancutt all point to the fact that in the Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy 32, God himself is referred to as ‫צור‬, “Rock” six times (Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37) in addition to the wilderness rock mentioned in Deut 32:13. This would provide an exegetical ground for Paul’s identification of the rock with Christ in 1 Cor 10:4c. The wind is taken from the sails of this argument, however, by the critical fact that in the Septuagint, πέτρα only occurs twice, rendering of the words ‫סלע‬ and ‫צור‬, in LXX Deut 32:13. Those who wish to claim the influence of Deuteronomy 32 on 1 Cor 10:1– 11 by virtue of the importance of the word “rock” have to presume Paul’s use of a Hebrew text.  Diana Swancutt, “Christian ‘Rock’ Music at Corinth?” in Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Traditions (ed. H. W. Attridge and M. E. Fassler; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 125 – 43; see also Meeks, “And Rose up to Play,” 72; and Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 10.

76

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Even if we grant that Paul knew a Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 32 and that he used it in conjunction with traditions from the LXX Psalms and Wisdom of Solomon,¹⁰⁵ 1 Cor 10:1– 10 does not use πέτρα as a repeated leitmotif like Deuteronomy 32. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32 makes no recognizable allusion to the cloud or the sea. Deut 32:13 does mention quail and honey/oil from the rock in a compressed poetic form, but this finds no echo in Paul’s text. The worship of idols is mentioned in Deut 32:21, though there is no concrete allusion to the golden calf episode. Desire, fornication, testing, and murmuring are also absent, although there are references to the punishments of plague (Deut 32:24), poisonous serpents (Deut 32:33), and general destruction (Deut 32:23). In short, the lexical points of contact between Deuteronomy 32 and 1 Cor 10:1– 11 simply are not great enough to demonstrate that this passage exercises structural control over Paul’s paraenesis. Deuteronomy 32 may have been an early example of the same kind of homiletic pattern Paul was using in the broadest of strokes (blessed events followed by punishments), but is not the direct source of 1 Cor 10:1– 11(13). Although Deuteronomy 32 does not structure Paul’s passage, the theology of this chapter may well have exerted a different kind of influence on 1 Cor 10:1– 11 (13). Later in the chapter, Paul twice alludes to Deuteronomy 32 (1 Cor 10:20, 22).¹⁰⁶ Deut 32:4c may in fact be echoed in 1 Cor 10:13 (πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός).¹⁰⁷ Although these allusions come after the bulk of the scriptural exposition and paraenesis, it is nonetheless likely that 1 Cor 10:1– 11, esp. 1 Cor 10:4, suggested Deuteronomy 32 to Paul’s mind, and that the latter passages came to color his discourse. It is also worth noting that Deut 31:19, 22, and 29 speak of Moses writing and teaching the song to the Israelites, so that it can be a witness against them when they disobey. This mirrors Paul’s use, especially in 1 Cor 10:11. While I do not think Deuteronomy 32 structures Paul’s exhortation, its function within the pentateuchal narrative provides a scriptural and theological warrant for Paul to read these narratives typologically.¹⁰⁸

 For this possibility, see David Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy (WUNT 2.284; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 163 – 64, n.142.  See, e. g., Lincicum, Early Jewish Encounter, 119.  See Hays, 95, n.30; Lincicum, Early Jewish Encounter, 141.  For treatments of the influence of Deuteronomy 32 on Paul’s theology more broadly, see Hays, Echoes, 91– 94; 162– 64; and Lincicum, Early Jewish Encounter, 158 – 16, esp. 163, n.142. While Lincicum confines his treatment of 1 Corinthians 10 largely to the echoes in 1 Cor 10:20, 22, he does “ponder” here whether the citation of Exod 32:6 “is not to be understood in a Deuteronomistic sense.” This supposition, if correct, would still adhere primarily at the level of the chapter as a whole.

2.4 1 Cor 10:1 – 13

77

Rather than Deuteronomy 32, LXX Psalms 77 and 104– 105 provide the closest substantive parallels for 1 Cor 10:1– 13. Certain elements, however, are missing from each psalm. In looking at the four blessed events found in 1 Cor 10:1– 5, for instance, LXX Ps 77:13 – 18, Ps 104:39 – 41, 2 Esd 19 – 20, and Wis 10:17– 11:4 all provide quite close parallels. In the end, none of these poetic texts presents the same four “blessed events” in the pentateuchal sequence, as Paul does. The thesis of Sandelin and others, that 1 Cor 10:1– 10 can be explained purely in terms of a biblical psalmic or narrative pattern, thus needs to be qualified. Nowhere in the psalmic or wisdom material do we find the same sequential rehearsal of all four elements (cloud, sea, food, drink) following exactly the sequence of their appearance in Paul and followed by the same set of warnings.¹⁰⁹ I think it is more likely that in (§1.1) 1 Cor 10:1– 5, Paul has imitated or borrowed an exegetical tradition which selected these four “blessed events” out of sequence from the Pentateuch and embellished them with the language of the Psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon. While Paul has drawn on Jewish traditions, moreover, the final form of 1 Cor 10:1– 5 clearly bears the marks of Christian exegesis. To push the issue, as an exempli gratia tradition-history, one could suggest that 1 Cor 10:1, 3 – 4ab represent an original Jewish stratum, to which Paul added the exegetical comments of 1 Cor 10:2, 4c.¹¹⁰ All four central elements (cloud, sea, food, drink), however, seem suspiciously appropriate to the sacramental context that Paul anticipates in 1 Cor 10:16 – 17. Still, roots in a Jewish tradition cannot be entirely ruled out, and Paul’s allegorical interpretation of Moses’ rock as Christ (1 Cor 10:4) bears striking similarity to the Alexandrian allegory of the rock as σοφία (Wis 11:4; Philo, Det. 115 – 18) or the λόγος (Philo, Leg. 2.84; Det. 115 – 18).¹¹¹ In 1 Cor 10:6 – 10, by contrast, the collection of prohibitions and exempla are more haphazard. Meeks is right to point to Exod 32:6 as especially important for unifying this section in its final form. The connection between “play” and “idolatry,” present also in the Hebrew of t.Sotah 6.6, suggests that Paul is making a similar move in 1 Cor 10:7. Sandelin, of course, is right to point out that this tannaitic passage shares few formal features with 1 Cor 10:6 – 10, or, for that matter, with 1 Cor 10:1– 10. But since the catena of imperatives based on scriptural exem-

 LXX Ps 77 and LXX Neh 19 both invert “cloud” and “sea,” putting emphasis on the more dramatic element in salvation history.  Meeks, “And Rose Up to Play,” 65 – 66, suggests a similar reconstruction, but ultimately rejects the Jewish origins of the homily. This theory needs to be revisited, given the absence of exact parallelism (five indefinites) in 1 Cor 10:6 – 10.  See Weiß, Erste Korintherbrief, 251.

78

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

pla is not exactly like anything surveyed in the biblical literature, we cannot exclude the possibility that Paul composed this “exegetical vice list” through various interpretations of the verb παίζειν, on the basis of a halakhic grouping around the themes of “desire” or “idolatry,”¹¹² or through some combination of these three halakhic and haggadic headings. In the final analysis, what distinguishes 1 Cor 10:1– 10 from its OT parallels is the citation of a pentateuchal verse—one verse, it is granted, but one verse which stands out as a lone cedar tree on a canyon promontory, demanding our attention. Given that distinctive characteristic, Meeks’s analysis still has something to commend it. It recognizes the exegetical structuring element which situates Paul’s text somewhere between psalm and a lemmatic exegesis, a blending of the two within the context of a Greco-Roman letter. This is precisely the kind of fusion one would expect in the context of early first-century exegesis, as rewritten Bible meets with rhetorical tropes and emergent commentary practices.

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 The last of Windisch’s “midraschartige Stücke” is the pericope from 2 Corinthians, which forms the focus of this study. The foregoing three analyses have set the stage for this fourth investigation and it is in their light that his exegesis of Exodus 34 can both be contextualized in terms of some common features of his exegetical praxis and also distinguished for its unique pattern. Although all four of these passages exemplify “sequential exegesis” of one variety or another, a basic difference between the patterns of Romans and Galatians, which work fairly atomistically, and the pattern of 1 Corinthians, which transverses large sections of scripture, is already evident. Paul’s exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, however, constitutes an entirely new pattern, set apart by formal and informal features that make it unique within the Pauline corpus.

 The laws could be grouped (1) under the single genus of ἐπιθυμία; (2) under two headings drawn from the two tables of the Decalogue (II – ἐπιθυμία, I – εἰδωλολατρία); or (3) under either of the above, but also inflected by an early version of the Noahide commandments for the partGentile, eschatological wilderness generation. This would help explain the prohibitions against eating εἰδωλόθυτα and drinking αἷμα (on a pejorative reading of φαγεῖν and πεῖν 1 Cor 10:7; see 1 Cor 8:1; 10:15; Acts 15:29) and against πορνεία (1 Cor 10:8; Acts 15:29).

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18

79

2.5.1 The Exegetical Pattern In distinction from the three foregoing “midraschartige Stücke,” 2 Cor 3:7– 18 does not include a single citation formula. Its pattern of exegesis, while almost entirely implicit, can be illustrated as shown in Table 2.9 below. Table 2.10: Exegetical Pattern of 2 Cor 3:7 – 18  Cor : –   Cor :b  Cor :  Cor :  Cor : –   Cor :  Cor :

Part One: Threefold synkrisis of old and new covenant glory Exod :[] (paraphrastic allusion) Exod : –  (modified citation) Hinge verse, redactional link with argument of the letter Part Two: Moses’ veiling and unveiling Exod :[] (paraphrastic allusion) Exod :[] (modified citation)

2.5.2 The Pericope Windisch’s arguments for considering 2 Cor 3:7– 18 as a unit have been mentioned briefly in the first chapter. However, several other possible delimitations of the pericope are possible. Perhaps most obviously, 2 Cor 3:7– 18 might be expanded to include 2 Cor 4:1– 6.¹¹³ This latter pericope does continue to use the same themes of 2 Cor 3:7– 18. However, as I will argue, the sequential exposition of the Exodus text ends prior to this point. Moreover, given the return of Paul’s apologetic tone in these verses, I prefer to treat them, as I will in chapter five, as Paul’s integration of this exegesis into his letter. The pericope might also be extended in the other direction, to begin at 2 Cor 3:4 or 2 Cor 3:1. As many scholars have noted, in 2 Cor 3:4, 12; 4:1, 7, and 13, Paul uses a common transitional formula (ἔχειν + apostolic attribute + demonstrative) to link sections of the letter.¹¹⁴ These formulae represent Paul’s rhetorical divisions. Paul’s exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 thus begins three verses into one section (2 Cor 3:4– 11) and also embraces the entirety of a second (2 Cor 3:12 – 18). Unlike Gal 4:21– 5:1 and 1 Cor 10:1– 13, then, 2 Cor 3:7– 18 does not comprise a self-con-

 Furnish, II Corinthians, 201 is among those who read 2 Cor 3:7– 4:6 as a unit; Rudolf Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), 81, and Martin, 2 Corinthians, 56, are among those delimiting the narrower pericope, 2 Cor 3:7– 18.  See, e. g., Schröter, “Schriftauslegung und Hermeneutik,” 242.

80

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

tained rhetorical unit. It bears greater similarity to Rom 4:3 – 25, which functioned as an exemplum in a larger rhetorical unit (beginning at least as early as Rom 3:27). On that analogy, one could argue that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 provides a rhetorical expansion of the argument in 2 Cor 3:4– 6, and thus should include these verses. In addition to these rhetorical considerations, the beginning of the pericope might be pushed forward as early as 2 Cor 3:1 on the basis of the dense forest of scriptural echoes that grows up in this section of the letter. Intertexts with LXX Exod 31:18, 32:15, 34:1; LXX Ezek 11:19, 36:26; and LXX Jer 38:31 (inter alia) have all been heard in 2 Cor 3:1– 6. These scriptural echoes, all pertinent to the theme of Israel’s covenant and its renewal, are clearly important and will be addressed as well in chapter five. Paul’s exegesis of Exod 34:29 – 35 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, however, remains a formally discrete unit. Thus, as in Rom 4:3 – 25, so here, without downplaying the importance of 2 Cor 3:1– 6, the focus of this inquiry on Paul’s use of scripture permits beginning with 2 Cor 3:7 in order to keep the exegetical analysis in the foreground. The analogy with Rom 4:3 – 25 might be extended further by noting that just as Rom 4:9 reasserts the diatribal frame within the course of scriptural exegesis, so 2 Cor 3:12 interrupts the flow of the exegesis, resuming, for a verse, the main apologetic thread of Paul’s argument. Some, accordingly, might justifiably recognize 2 Cor 3:7– 18 not as a single unit, but as two separate exegetical comments, 2 Cor 3:7– 11 Corresponding to 2 Cor 3:4– 6 and 2 Cor 3:13 – 18 expounding upon 2 Cor 3:12. Rudolf Bultmann, in evaluating Windisch’s proposal, raises a possibility (which he ultimately rejects) that 2 Cor 3:7– 11 indeed came from a traditional source, whereas 2 Cor 3:12– 18 “most intimately coheres with [Paul’s] train of thought.”¹¹⁵ Clearly, understanding the relation of 2 Cor 3:12 to 2 Cor 3:4 is essential for resolving this issue. However, Paul’s sequential treatment of Exod 34:29 – 35 throughout the entirety of 2 Cor 3:7– 18, from the standpoint of the study of ancient biblical interpretation, follows a unified exegetical logic of its own and provides sufficient grounds for arguing that the pericope, thus delimited, possesses an inherent unity.

 Bultmann, Second Letter, 84. Cf. Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 332, who inversely considers 2 Cor 3:12– 18 “relativ selbständig” and detached from Paul’s apologetic concerns.

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18

81

2.5.3 Explicit Pauline Controls Paul’s pattern of exegesis in 1 Cor 10:1– 13 stands out from the patterns in Gal 4:21– 5:1 and Rom 4:3 – 25 in part due to its employment of far fewer citation formulae. In 2 Cor 3:7– 18, citation formulae disappear altogether. While one should not make too much of this absence, it does objectively set this passage apart from the other three “midraschartige Stücke” studied in this chapter. What ensues in Paul’s epistle is a tightly structured exegesis, which relates to Paul’s defense of his apostolic sufficiency (ἱκανότης), ministry (διακονία; 2 Cor 3:5, 6), and “confidence” (πεποίθησις; 2 Cor 3:4, 12; 4:1, 7, 13). At the same time, the scope of the exegetical excursus transcends the immediate polemics of the letter (rival ministers and skeptical Corinthians) and speaks of more basic theological and religious polarities (e. g. old covenant/renewed covenant). Because of the absence of explicit controls on the biblical text, the most that can be done here is to describe what explicit markers do govern Paul’s thought. §1. 2 Cor 3:7– 11 The first part of Paul’s exegetical excursus is neatly divided into three a minori ad maius arguments. Drawing primarily on a paraphrase of Exod 34:29 – 30, Paul makes the case that if the Mosaic covenant came “in glory,”¹¹⁶ all the more so must the renewal of that covenant through the Spirit come “in glory.” While Paul often makes use of a minori ad maius argumentation elsewhere in his letters, only here in the corpus Paulinum, and indeed in the entire New Testament, do three a minori ad maius arguments appear in a rapid fusillade, progressively expanding upon the same theological point in a series of overlapping proofs.¹¹⁷

 The noun δόξα does not occur in LXX Exodus 34. J.-F. Collange, Énigmes de la Deuxième Épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude Exégètique de 2 Cor. 2:14 – 7:4 (SNTSMS 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 74, commenting on the appearance of the noun, suggests, “Si Paul emploie ici ce terme c’est à cause du δεδόξασται d’Exod. 34:29 et de l’usage que ses adversaires en faisaient.” He is right on the first count, but we must suspend judgment on the second. Paul may well have nominalized the verb himself. For the routine “nominalization” of verbs in Hellenistic commentary literature and the suggestion that the appearance of the substantive ἔνδοξα in LXX Exod 34:10 may have even suggested to Paul the prepositional phrase, ἐν δόξῃ (2 Cor 3:7, 8, 11), see the discussion below.  The closest parallel in the Pauline epistles is Rom 5:9, 10 and Rom 5:15, 17; πολλῷ μᾶλλον occurs twice in each couplet of conditionals. Also worthy of note is the occurrence of the verb περισσεύειν in the apodosis of the argument in Rom 5:15, which, despite the difference of tenses, mirrors the syntax of 2 Cor 3:9. Such lexical and syntactic similarities suggest that Paul himself was the author of these three a minori ad maius arguments, or at least the second two of them. A similar couplet of conditionals appears in Jesus’ Q saying about the birds and the lilies (πόσῳ μᾶλλον 2x in Luke 12:24, 28; cf. οὐχ μᾶλλον and οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον in Matt 6:26, 30, which

82

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

The structure of the first a minori ad maius argument (2 Cor 3:7a, 8) is lexically linked to foregoing apology (2 Cor 3:1– 6). Paul’s insistence that his ministry is not of the letter that kills, but of the Spirit that gives life clearly looks back to 2 Cor 3:6.¹¹⁸ The reference to “stones” echoes the “stony tablets” of 2 Cor 3:3.¹¹⁹ The second a minori ad maius argument (2 Cor 3:9) theologically interprets the first argument, distinguishing between the covenant of “condemnation” (= “death”) and the covenant of “justification” (= “life-giving spirit”). The connection to 2 Cor 3:1– 6 is looser here. The final a minori ad maius argument (2 Cor 3:11) distinguishes between the transient nature of the Mosaic (old) covenant (and its glory) and the permanent nature of the Christian (renewed) covenant (and its glory). This third argument is almost entirely independent from 2 Cor 3:1– 6, and rests instead on the interpretation of Exod 34:29 – 35 in 2 Cor 3:7b, 10, particularly the appearance of the participle καταργουμένην in 2 Cor 3:7b. §2. 2 Cor 3:12 – 18 While the first half of Paul’s exegesis contains a clear rhetorical organization, 2 Cor 3:12 – 18 poses more questions for the interpreter. It seems to proceed at once in a circular and in a linear fashion. On the one hand, as mentioned above, Paul’s boast of his hope and parrhēsia in 2 Cor 3:12 – 13 link the exegetical excursus to the broader structure of the letter (2 Cor 3:4; 4:1). 2 Cor 3:12– 13 and 3:18 form an inclusio, χρώμεθα … οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς (2 Cor 3:12– 13) corresponding syntactically to μεταμορφούμεθα … καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος (2 Cor 3:18). This inclusio thus opens with a rhetorical synkrisis between the ministries of Moses and Paul and closes with a vision of the whole people of the new covenant. Furthermore, whereas 2 Cor 3:13 – 15 describes the ministry of Moses and those who follow him, 2 Cor 3:16 – 18 describes the people and the ministers of the renewed covenant in the Spirit.

may reflect a prophetic tone [a more Semitizing style?]. Luke has regularized the syntax and softened the didactic tone).  On the Spirit and the renewal of the covenant, see LXX Ezek 11:19, 36:26.  For the adjective “stony” used of tablets, see LXX Exod 31:18, 32:15, 34:1; as such, fixing a point of reference in the calf narrative of Exodus 32, as some do, seems inadvisable. For “stony” used of the singular (collective) heart, see LXX Ezek 11:19, 36:26; for a covenant on “hearts” in the plural, see LXX Jer 38:33. Paul uses the written nature of the Mosaic covenant to illustrate not only its halakhic potential to kill, but also the Deuternomistic need to internalize Torah (LXX Deut 6:6) and the Platonizing preference for a living speaker over a written text. See Plato, Phaedr. 275d–276a, and its postulate of “another logos (speech) … written with knowledge on the soul of the learner”: ἄλλον … λόγον τούτου ἀδελφὸν γνήσιον, τῷ τρόπῳ τε γίγνεται, καὶ ὅσῳ ἀμείνων καὶ δυνατώτερος τούτου φύεται … ὃς μετ’ ἐπιστήμης γράφεται ἐν τῇ τοῦ μανθάνοντος ψυχῇ, δυνατὸς μὲν ἀμῦναι ἑαυτῷ, ἐπιστήμων δὲ λέγειν τε καὶ σιγᾶν πρὸς οὓς δεῖ.

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18

83

The whole has a chiastic shape (Moses : people :: people : renewed covenant people and apostles [including Paul]).¹²⁰ Despite these circular features, Paul’s pattern in this section is also distinctly linear, after the fashion of a commentary,¹²¹ continuing the momentum of 2 Cor 3:7– 11. 2 Cor 3:15 (ἕως σήμερον) echoes and repeats the ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον of 2 Cor 3:14, thus linking the verses on a lexical level. 2 Cor 3:15 and 3:16 are likewise linked as a couplet through their common use of the term ἡνίκα (Exod 34:34). Finally, 2 Cor 3:16 and 2 Cor 3:17 are inherently connected, as 2 Cor 3:17 provides an interpretative gloss on the modified citation of 2 Cor 3:16. Thus, Fitzmyer is right to claim that this section in particular (2 Cor 3:14– 17) follows the logic of “catchword bonding.”¹²² At the macro-structural level, the linear character of this unit is fortified by corresponding references to “sameness”—

 On the chiastic arrangement of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6 more broadly, see Jan Lambrecht, “Structure and Line of Thought in 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6,” Bib 64 (1983): 344– 80.  Belleville, Reflections of Glory, has previously argued for the nature of 2 Cor 3:7, 12– 18 as a commentary. While I agree with her general approach and characterization of the passage, the particulars of the pattern of exegesis that she identifies stand in need of revision on a number of scores. I will enumerate them briefly here. First, with regard to 2 Cor 3:12– 18, Belleville (Reflections of Glory, 177) discerns the following structure: (1) 2 Cor 3:12: Opening Statement; (2) 2 Cor 3:13 – 14a: Text 1, Exod 34:33; (3) 2 Cor 3:14b–15: Commentary 1; (4) 2 Cor 3:16: Text 2 (Exod 34:34); (5) 2 Cor 3:17: Commentary 2; (6) 2 Cor 3:18: Text and Commentary 3 (Exod 34:35). I would revise this in the following ways: First, the first “text” (2) is stated only in 2 Cor 3:13 (cf. 2 Cor 3:7); 2 Cor 3:14a begins the commentary with ἀλλά, offering an interpretation of the paraphrastic text, which reorients the object of blame from Moses to the Israelites. As such, the commentary consists in three rather than two discrete points, although 2 Cor 3:14 can be construed as a single comment. The “text” itself, moreover, is not merely Exod 34:33 (thought this is the center of Paul’s attention), but a paraphrase of Exod 34:33 and 35; these two texts permit Paul to suppose Moses’ veiling was a repeated activity. Second, Belleville’s interpretation of 2 Cor 3:18 as both text and commentary seems strained. As I will conclude below, an exegetical analysis of this pericope reveals an essential structure of two “texts” and two “comments.” This leads us back to 2 Cor 3:7– 11. While Belleville admits that 2 Cor 3:7 participates in the commentary, she fails to recognize, on at least two independent occasions, the role of 2 Cor 3:10 in Paul’s pattern of exegesis (see Belleville, Reflections of Glory, 24– 25, 199). This leads her to miss what I would consider the fundamental pattern of exegesis throughout 2 Cor 3:7– 18. Each half of Paul’s exegesis consists in two engagements with and/or reflections on Exod 34:29 – 35; the first is paraphrastic (2 Cor 3:7, 13); the second involves a close citation of the text itself (2 Cor 3:10, 16). Finally, Belleville suggests that Paul’s scriptural pericope begins at Exod 34:28. While this is possible, Paul’s reference to “letters” seems to take its more immediate cue from the noun and cognate participles in 2 Cor 3:2, 3, and 6—the referent of which, if a Mosaic text, may point back to Exod 31:18, 32:15, or 34:1. The echo of Exod 31:18 in 2 Cor 3:3 leads me to hear a composite allusion here. On these grounds, I prefer to begin Paul’s lemma with Exod 34:29.  Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected,” 634.

84

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα (2 Cor 3:14) and ἡ αὐτὴ εἰκών (2 Cor 3:18)—near the end of each subsection (2 Cor 3:13 – 15 and 2 Cor 3:16 – 18).¹²³ These rhetorical controls, however, do not account for Paul’s argumentative structure; we will need to turn again to implicit scriptural controls of the text.

2.5.4 Implicit Scriptural Control If Paul does not announce that he will be interpreting scripture in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 by using citation formulae, the passage emerges, upon closer scrutiny, as distinctly exegetical—not merely allusive. Its scriptural focus, Exod 34:29 – 35, represents one of the longest continuous biblical lemmata treated by Paul in his letters. Paul alludes to Exod 34:29 – 30 twice in (§1) 2 Cor 3:7– 11 and then turns to Exod 34:33 – 34[35] in (§2) 2 Cor 3:12– 18. The entire passage is clearly in his mind. The “allusion” to Exod 34:34 in 2 Cor 3:16, for example, is actually a modified citation of that verse, which draws on the vocabulary of Exod 34:31. In what follows, I will treat the implicit scriptural controls on Paul’s argument in these two parts of his exegesis. §1. 2 Cor 3:7b, 11 Paul keeps his eyes fixed on Exod 34:29 – 30 in 2 Cor 3:7– 11, not looking ahead to Moses’ veil, but marveling at Moses’ overwhelming δόξα. This root word and its cognates sound at least twice in every verse of this section (2 Cor 3:7bis, 8bis, 9bis, 10ter, 11bis), as the A-theme in this passage. The use of the noun δόξα, which occurs nowhere in Exod 34:29 – 35, may be traditional or simply Paul’s own deployment of commentary method. Both Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary (see chapter three) nominalize verbs from their base text in order to thematize key concepts. The substantive ἔνδοξα, moreover, occurs in Exod 34:10, and this intriguing form makes one wonder whether Paul’s use of the nominal form and perhaps even the prepositional phrase ἐν δόξῃ (2 Cor 3:7, 11) echoes this earlier verse. Whatever the case, Paul’s repetition of a single scriptural word-root throughout the section in every verse resembles his compositional technique in Romans 4:3 – 12 (λογίζε-

 The polarity of veil and image (what is not seen because of the veil) is cross-referenced and expanded later in the epistle by τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα in 2 Cor 4:13. The fact that Paul uses the phrase “the same” in his exegetical comments in both of the Corinthian passages treated here (see also 1 Cor 10:3 – 4) to designate food, drink, veil (all three alluding to Exodus), image, and spirit—coupled with Paul’s explicit reference to the notion of “type” in each (1 Cor 10:6 [τύποι], 11 [τυπικῶς]; 2 Cor 3:7 [ἐντετυπωμένη])—reveals a certain degree of methodological continuity between these passages and provides an initial argument against presuming that Paul’s exegesis of Exodus in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 comes from his opponents (pace Georgi and Van Kooten).

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18

85

σθαι), but on a more compressed scale. In 2 Corinthians, δόξα appears even more thickly—a rhetorical performance, one might say, of the glory resplendent in the biblical text, an auditory icon of the two glories which encounter one another in this “face off” between the two covenants. Although there are two references to Exod 34:[29–]30 in this first section (2 Cor 3:7b, 10), neither is introduced by a citation formula (as in Gal 4:22). The two allusions do not provide structural headers, but rather, function as scriptural proofs to ground the a minori ad maius arguments in 2 Cor 3:7a and 2 Cor 3:9, 11, respectively. 2 Cor 3:7b presents an interpretive paraphrase of Exod 34:29 – 30, not so much as proof but as the natural result of Moses’ glory. In light of its complex allusive nature, one could raise the question of whether 2 Cor 3:7b actually alludes to any one verse. Windisch, for instance, notes: Was er freilich hervorhebt, ist targumartige Eintragung, gegen den Text Ex 3430 und 35a … verstoßend, gleichwohl aus dem ἐφοβήθησαν ἐγγίσαι αὐτοῦ V. 30b, sowie aus dem Bericht von der ‘Hülle’, die Moses auf sein Gesicht legte (V.33 u. 35b), nicht ohne Grund erschlossen, vielleicht auch an Exod 4029(35) oder III Reg 811 angelehnt.”¹²⁴

Windisch thus essentially reads 2 Cor 3:7b as a targumic allusion to the entire Exodus pericope—and more! Bultmann follows suit.¹²⁵ While not wishing to deny the intertextual complexity of 2 Cor 3:7b, with a large group of scholars, I read this verse primarily as a paraphrase of Exod 34:29 – 30, in light of Paul’s focus on these verses in the first section of his exegesis.¹²⁶ The paraphrase, nonetheless, involves some subtle modifications, which already interpret the scriptural verse in light of the surrounding Exodus pericope and Jewish exegetical tradition. “The sons of Israel” are imported from Exod 34:32, 34, 35. Fear to approach Moses, moreover, becomes inability to see him, a theme Paul shares with Philo (see Philo, Mos. 2.70). Both of these added features may in fact be related at the traditional level. The people incapable of seeing are ironically called the sons of “Israel,” who, according to a Hebrew etymological tradition known to Philo, should be able to see God (‫ שור אל‬or ‫]א[יש ראה‬

 Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 113 – 14,  Bultmann, Second Letter, 80.  See Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 111; Hans-Josef Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief (Neue EchterBibel, NT 8; Würzburg: Echter, 1994), 38; Martin, 2 Corinthians, 62; and Furnish, II Corinthians, 203. The foregoing study of Gal 4:22 confirms that Paul may focus a paraphrase on a particular verse or pair of verses.

86

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

‫ ;אל‬ὁρῶν τὸν θεὸν).¹²⁷ As Lester Grabbe has extensively argued, Philo, who in all probability did not speak Hebrew, knew this etymology from an onomasticon, such as the ones discovered at Oxyrhynchus.¹²⁸ A bi- or trilingual Jew like Paul would surely have known such an etymology. 2 Cor 3:10 shows a closer engagement with the LXX text of Exod 34:29 – 30. In the phrase οὐ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδοξασμένον, Paul echoes the finite and participial forms of δοξάζειν in the exact sequence of their appearance in Exod 34:29 and 30. By changing the gender of the latter, he offers a significant interpretation, shifting the meaning from Moses’ resplendent face (ὄψις) to the res of Moses’ ministry and all that it entails, from the signifier to the signified. This close adherence to the text of Exodus renders his insertion of οὐ all the more surprising, contradicting point blank the meaning of Exodus. We see here an ancient Jewish interpretive practice, which could be called “negation as exegesis.” This is a device where an exegete makes a verbal allusion to or citation of an OT text and flagrantly negates a part of it, but does so in such a way that he “by no means” subverts the overall authority of scripture.¹²⁹ §2. 2 Cor 3:13, 16 After the structural signpost in 2 Cor 3:12, Paul returns to the narrative of Exodus 34. Paul’s B-theme, κάλυμμα, appropriately veils his A-theme, δόξα. The two δόξαι are only to appear again, integrated with the Btheme, in the finale of this exegetical symphony (2 Cor 3:18), in which Paul also adds its scriptural and philosophical complement, εἰκών (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15). Like δόξα in (§1) 2 Cor 3:7– 11, Moses’ κάλυμμα and its cognates in (§2) 2 Cor 3:12 – 18 appear in almost every verse (2 Cor 3:13, 14bis, 15, 16, 18). Furthermore, like (§1) 2 Cor 3:7– 11, (§2) 2 Cor 3:12 – 18 also contains two specific references to Exodus 34, a paraphrastic allusion to Exod 34:33[35] in 2 Cor 3:13 and a compo-

 Philo, Mut. 81, Leg. 3.212, Post. 92, Deus 144, et passim. For discussions of psychic vision in Philo, see Michael Cover, “The Sun and the Chariot: The Republic and the Phaedrus as Sources for Rival Platonic Paradigms of Contemplative Vision,” SPhA 26 (2014): 151– 167; Scott Mackie, “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” SPhA 21 (2009): 25 – 47; and Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (SPhAMS; Atlanta, Scholars, 1996).  Lester L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (BJS 115; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988).  Other important examples of this technique include the “negated citation” of Mal 5:1, 3 in Matt 2:6 and Philo’s “negated allusion” to Gen 1:27 in Opif. 134 (cf. Opif. 76). Philo’s “negated allusion” provides a closer parallel to Paul, although he has philosophical rather than apocalyptic grounds for negating the literal sense of Gen 1:27. For the occurrence of a similar technique in the targumim, see Michael Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Biblica 57 (1976): 515 – 37.

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18

87

site citation, centering on Exod 34:34, in 2 Cor 3:16. Again, as in the case of 2 Cor 3:7b, so in 2 Cor 3:13, one could argue that Paul is alluding not to a single verse, but to two of them. This view, it seems to me, is in this instance partially justified, as the imperfect ἐτίθει reflects a repeated veiling rather than the two specific, aorist veilings indicated in Exod 34:33, 35. That ancient exegetes paid such careful attention to the aspect of verbs is evinced by Philo, Her. 17, where the Alexandrian notes that Moses “used to speak” in a continuous dialogue with God (ἐλάλει), not just on one occasion (ἐλάλησεν). Unlike Her. 17, however, Paul or the Jewish tradition he transmits in 2 Cor 3:13 has created the imperfect by putting two verbs together (Exod 34:33, 35) and drawing an inference about Moses. This does not, however, mean that Paul circumvents the sequence of the narrative; the “veiling” of 2 Cor 3:13 still anticipates the unveiling of 2 Cor 3:16, 18, and as such Paul remains textually situated at Exod 34:33. The paraphrastic allusion in 2 Cor 3:13 bears a strong lexical and structural resemblance to the allusion in 2 Cor 3:7b, as both mention the “sons of Israel,” their inability (for various reasons) to “look intently” (ἀτενίσαι) on Moses’ glory, and both culminate with a reference to that which is passing away: 2 Cor 3:7b ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Μωϋσέως διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην. 2 Cor 3:13 πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου.

This similarity provides structural symmetry and offers internal evidence that both “halves” of the Mosaic excursus nonetheless belong to the same exegetical tradition.¹³⁰ The material immediately following Paul’s scriptural allusion in 2 Cor 3:13 presents itself as something like an anthology of exegetical comments. 2 Cor 3:14 and 3:15 present two different readings of the paraphrase of Exod 34:33 found in 2 Cor 3:13. These two “alternative” readings are furthermore presented using the adversative particle, ἀλλά. As we saw in Gal 4:23, 29, ἀλλά can appear as a technical term in commentary texts,¹³¹ signaling the introduction of new information or a modification of the view which has just been given. This re-

 Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 332, inverting Bultmann’s position, describes 2 Cor 3:12– 18 as “relativ selbständig” from 2 Cor 3:7– 18. He does this in order to construe the latter half of Paul’s exegesis as hermeneutical in character. While I grant Koch’s argument that Paul speaks (in part) of method here, the two halves of Paul’s exegesis clearly stem from the same commentary tradition and form an integral pattern.  For an interesting example of the “exegetical” ἀλλά in the Homeric V-Scholia, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 81.

88

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

currence of two such exegetical comments, as the three a minori ad maius arguments in (§1) 2 Cor 3:7– 11, is a hapax syntetagmenon in Paul’s letters.¹³² Whereas both may be instances of homiletic flourish, this latter case reflects anthological commentary practices as well. The unmarked citation in 2 Cor 3:16 differs more significantly from the foregoing Exodus intertext in 2 Cor 3:10. Whereas 2 Cor 3:10 echoes two words from two sequential scriptural verses (Exod 34:29 – 30), 2 Cor 3:16 offers an entire citation, albeit one which differs importantly from the text of Exodus: 2 Cor 3:16 ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. Exod 34:34a ἡνίκα δ’ ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο Μωϋσῆς ἐναντι κυρίου λαλεῖν αὐτῷ, περιῃρεῖτο τὸ κάλυμμα ἕως τοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι.

The most important differences in Paul’s rewriting of the biblical text are his shift to the present tense and his elimination of Moses as the explicit subject of περιαιρεῖται. Some critics suggest that the grammatical voice of περιαιρεῖται, likewise, has shifted from the middle transitive to the passive, but this is not certain. What does seem clear is that by omitting Moses as the explicit subject and translating the veil onto the heart of the sons of Israel in 2 Cor 3:15, Moses’ removal of his veil becomes an action that all Israel is called to participate in, whether actively or passively. Entry into and exit from the tent have likewise been omitted in Paul’s citation. This is not to eliminate any reference to tent of meeting traditions in 2 Cor 3:12– 18, only to suggest that Paul reinterprets them in terms of “turning toward the Lord.” Whether this is a specifically messianic interpretation (at this stage in the text) depends in large part on who is meant by “Lord.” Paul’s new verb, ἐπιστρέφειν, need only mean “turn toward,” as it does in the prophetic literature,

 I have determined this through a Thesaurus Linguae Graecae advanced word index search of all of Paul’s uses of ἀλλά or ἀλλ’ in period-initial position found within five lines of another instance of ἀλλά or ἀλλ’. Gal 4:29, 30 come closest to matching our passage, but as mentioned in my treatment of that section above, Gal 4:30 is different from Gal 4:23, 29 in that the disjunction is followed by a question in the diatribal style of Rom 4:3 rather than of commentary proper. Rom 10:18, 19 also provide an intriguing parallel, since here two instances of sentence-initial ἀλλά occur in the context of scriptural argument. However, Paul’s use of diatribal questions here and the unique adversative ἀλλὰ λέγω (cf. Matt 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω) likewise distinguish this usage from that in 2 Cor 3:14, 15. Such rhetorical features have suggested to some a homiletic origin for this passage.

2.5 2 Cor 3:7 – 18

89

though it also frequently means “convert.”¹³³ Paul has adapted the verb from Exod 34:31, a move which will have theological implications, as I will suggest in chapter six. One final change worthy of note is Paul’s omission of the theme of speaking with God (λαλεῖν αὐτῷ). As I have argued elsewhere at length, this is probably due to Paul’s focus on transformation through vision (2 Cor 3:7, 13, 18) in this passage and an appeal to παρρησία (2 Cor 3:12) in the sense of a spiritual right of access “to God” (2 Cor 3:4) as well as to the noetic (rather than verbal) παρρησία of the sage (cf. Philo, Her. 14– 15).¹³⁴ Again, I will return to the fascinating subject of Mosaic exemplarity in Paul and Philo in chapter six. Unlike (§1) 2 Cor 3:7– 11, the two scriptural references in (§2) 2 Cor 3:12 – 18 allude to different verses and move the listener forward sequentially through the pericope. The sequential character of Paul’s exegesis in the second half of this section points to an important reality: that the argument throughout this exegetical excursus, including the sequence of themes from “glory” to “veil,” does not stem solely from Paul’s free theological will, but is also predetermined by the sequence of Exod 34:29 – 35. Moreover, Paul alternates between paraphrastic allusion and direct textual engagement, as is laid out in Table 2.10 below. Paul is working sequentially through seven verses (Exod 34:29 – 35) of the OT text in a sustained lemmatic exegesis. Exod 34:29 – 35 thus exercises control on the structure of Paul’s argument in this passage in a way distinguishable from any of Windisch’s other “midraschartige Stücke.” Table 2.11: Paraphrase and Textual Comment in 2 Cor 3:7 – 18    

Cor Cor Cor Cor

b : : :

Exod Exod Exod Exod

:[] (paraphrastic allusion) : –  (textual comment) :[] (paraphrastic allusion) :[] (textual comment)

 Gregory E. Sterling, “Turning to God: Conversion in Greek Speaking Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl Holladay (ed. Patrick Gray and Gail O’Day; NovTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 69 – 95.  Michael B. Cover, “A Bondsman’s Boldness and Pneumatic Power: Two Kinds of Parrēsia in 2 Corinthians 3:7– 4:6,” forthcoming.

90

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

2.6 Conclusion Having completed the study of Windisch’s four “midraschartige Stücke,” I offer now a brief comparison of the pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 with the patterns described in each of the other three texts. The comparison is structured under the headings of two types of control, “Explicit Pauline Controls” and “Implicit Scriptural Controls.” I will, however, do this in reverse order, beginning with implicit scriptural controls.

2.6.1 Implicit Scriptural Controls on Pauline Exegesis The most important factors in determining a pattern of exegesis in this comparative analysis appear to be the implicit ones: the length of the biblical pericope in question, its type of sequential exegesis, the depth of its penetration into the broader argument, and the author’s (unspoken) dependence on traditional exegesis. On these scores, 2 Cor 3:7– 18 stands out from Gal 4:21– 5:1, Rom 4:3 – 25, and 1 Cor 10:1– 13 as being sequentially controlled by a much longer scriptural lemma. As I concluded, Gal 4:21– 5:1 is essentially an exegesis of two verses from Genesis, Gen 21:9 – 10, interpreted two times over. Romans 4, likewise, despite its length and wide-ranging allusions to other chapters in the Abraham cycle, is structured upon a mere two verses, Gen 15:5 – 6, primarily Gen 15:6. 1 Cor 10:1– 13 demonstrated a more complex set of OT controls. While governed, on the one hand, by a biblical psalmic pattern (see LXX Psalm 77 and 105), it also carefully followed the sequence of four chapters of Genesis in the five elements of 1 Cor 10:1b – 5. In one sense, then, the structure of 1 Cor 10:1– 13 follows the OT in a far looser way than either Gal 4:21– 5:1 or Rom 4:3 – 25. On the other hand, as Meeks argues, Paul attempts to bring the homily to unity around one central biblical verse, in this case, the clever citation of Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7. In contrast to these three patterns, which at the redactional level interpret one or two scriptural verses, the exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 sequentially interprets a much longer pericope, Exod 34:29 – 35, a full seven verses. In part because they treat shorter passages, the “midraschartige Stücke” of Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians all carefully interpret a high percentage of the words in their primary lemmata. 2 Cor 3:7– 18, to the contrary, interprets far fewer words and themes from its implicit lemma and comments in a very selective manner.

2.6 Conclusion

91

2.6.2 Explicit Pauline Controls: Citation Formulae and Exegetical Markers Of less moment, but certainly also worthy of mention, are the differences of explicit exegetical control by Paul himself. In contrast to his practice in Gal 4:21– 5:1, Rom 4:3 – 25, and 1 Cor 10:1– 13, Paul does not use a single citation formula in 2 Cor 3:7– 18.¹³⁵ While this does not greatly distance this exegetical pattern from Paul’s pattern in 1 Cor 10:1– 13, it does distinguish it clearly from Rom 4:3 – 25 (and to a lesser degree, Gal 4:21– 5:1), in which Paul self-consciously marks the citation and re-citation of his biblical lemma. Paul structures Gal 4:21– 5:1 on three citation formulae and one allegorical formula. Romans 4, similarly, included five citation formulae and one application formula. Despite the primarily allusive character of 1 Cor 10:1– 13, Paul still attempts to unify his wilderness homily through the citation formula and verse in 1 Cor 10:7 and to bring the message to bear on the Corinthians through the application formula in 1 Cor 10:11b. 2 Cor 3:7– 18, thus, stands out again as a clear exception to the common pattern. Corresponding to the unusual kind and degree of OT control on 2 Cor 3:7– 18, the pericope also evinces an unusually low degree of explicit authorial exegetical control. Thus, the pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 emerges in this second category as strikingly different from the other three texts as well. The foregoing analysis demonstrates the distinctive pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. While I have not arrived at a description of what qualifies as the “normal Pauline pattern,” I have successfully shown that certain important formal and informal features bind Gal 4:21– 5:1, Rom 4, and 1 Cor 10:1– 13 together in such a way that Paul’s deviation from these norms in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 is noteworthy. It remains to be seen, however, just what traditional or form-critical backgrounds might help illuminate Paul’s exegetical pattern in Exodus 34. This question will set the agenda for part two of this study.

2.6.3 The Use of Exegetical Traditions in the Pauline Epistles? One intriguing question that this chapter raises is whether Paul reuses preformed exegetical traditions. The question looms large over this entire study.

 While I think Paul’s omission of citation formulae primarily results from the implicit nature of his commentary form (see chapter 3), Tzvi Novick points out in personal communication that Paul could hardly have used his token γέγραπται formula in a scriptural exposition arguing for the death-dealing power of the γράμμα. Paul delights in such wordplay and the suggestion merits serious consideration.

92

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Are atypical patterns of exegesis proof of Paul’s use of an external written source? Ultimately, this alone is not probative. Detecting the presence of a previously composed written source requires a far more complex set of evaluative criteria, including an assessment of vocabulary, stylometrics, ancient canons of literary unity, and the habits and contours of Pauline thought. It remains plausible to my mind, however, that in many cases, Paul did know and reuse Jewish exegetical traditions,¹³⁶ even as he employed traditional Jewish exegetical techniques in composing his letters. In this vein, it is worth noting that New Testament scholars have claimed Paul’s use or reuse, with minor modification, of previously composed exegetical traditions for a part or the whole of each one of these four “midraschartige Stücke.” In the case of Gal 4:21– 5:1, Jürgen Becker argues that Gal 4:22– 27 represents a relatively standard Christian school-exegesis from Antioch while Gerhard Sellin has advocated for Paul’s use of a Jewish exegetical tradition.¹³⁷ In the case of Romans, Michel, followed by Ellis and van der Minde, has suggested Paul’s use of a previously composed tradition (Jewish or Christian); they have been disputed, in part, by Moxnes.¹³⁸ Meeks considered 1 Cor 10:1– 13 a previously composed homily, and Barrett entertained a similar option;¹³⁹ and lights of varying brilliancies—including Georgi, Van Kooten, Lietzmann, and Fitzmyer—have claimed an independent origin for 2 Cor 3:7– 18. This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive survey of the sourcecritical hypotheses on these passages, but rather an indication that the widely variant patterns of exegesis in these sections have nonetheless suggested similar source- or tradition-critical hypotheses. The fact remains that no conclusive criteria have yet been developed for the study of Pauline redaction of exegetical or otherwise traditional material. It remains critical, in any event, to look into the variety of kinds of traditional sources and exegeses with which Paul might have been familiar, given his advanced education in the Jewish scriptures. Biblical exegesis in the first century took place in both written and oral form, which can be gathered loosely under  I am not, thereby, suggesting that Paul carried copies of such commentaries with him. On the unlikelihood that Paul always had access to written copies of scripture itself, see Wagner, Heralds, 20 – 28; cf. Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 69 – 71.  Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 118, n.3: “M.E. ist sie aber weder antiochenisch-christlich noch frühpaulinisch, sondern jüdisch” (original emphasis). Cf. Jürgen Becker, “Der Brief an die Galater,” in Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser [ed. J. Becker and U. Luz; NTD 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998], 9 – 103), 70 – 74.  See Michel, Brief, 98; Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 203 – 5.  See Barrett, First Epistle, 220.

2.7 Additional Tables

93

the headings of commentary and homily. It is to Paul’s larger literary Umwelt, then, that the next part of this study turns its attention.

2.7 Additional Tables Table 2.12: ΓΡΑΦΕΙΝ in Pauline Citation Formulae Verse

Form

 Thess

N/A (Cf. :, :) [Greek] γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ὅτι γέγραπται γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι γέγραπται γὰρ γέγραπται γὰρ καθὼς γέγραπται ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται γέγραπται γάρ — (N/A) ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἐγράφη ὅτι ὥσπερ γέγραπται ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν (N/A) ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται τότε γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγράμμενος κατὰ τὸ γεγράμμενον καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται, postpositive καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι

Gal : Gal : Gal : Gal :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom :

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι’ αὐτὸν μόνον ὅτι

Citation Type

Quotation (Deut :) Quotation (Deut :) Paraphrase (Gen :) Quotation (Isa :) Quotation (Isa :) Quotation (Jer :), slightly mod. Quotation (Apoc. Eliae, Or. ) Quotation (Job :) Quotation (Ps :), slight mod. — Quotation (Deut :) Quotation (Uncertain) Quotation (Exod :) — Quotation (Isa :) Quotation (Gen :), major mod. Quotation, Catena (Isa :; Hos :) Quotation Quotation Quotation Quotation Quotation

(Ps :) (Exod :) (Ps :) (Hab :) Cf. Gal :. (Isa :)

Quotation (Ps :) Quotation, Catena (Eccl :, Ps : – ; Ps :, Ps :, Ps :, Isa :/Prov :; Ps :) Quotation (Gen :) Quotation (Gen :); Cf.  Cor :, :.

94

2. Patterns of Exegesis in Paul’s “Midraschartige Stücke”

Verse

Form

Citation Type

Rom Rom Rom Rom

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει … ὅτι καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται γέγραπται γὰρ γέγραπται γὰρ ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται [προ]εγράφη (N/A) καθὼς γέγραπται καθὼς γέγραπται None (Cf. :) None (Cf. , )

Quotation (Ps :) Quotation (Mal :) Quotation, Catena (Isa :, :) Quotation (Lev :)

: : : :?

Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Phil Phlm

Quotation (Isa :, Nah :) Quotation, Catena (Deut :, Isa :) Quotation, Catena (Isa :; :) Quotation (Deut : + Prov :?) Quotation, Catena (Isa :; :) Quotation (Ps :) Quotation (Ps :/ Sam :) Quotation (Isa :) — —

The verb γράφειν is used to introduce scripture only in Hauptbriefe, not in 1 Thessalonians nor the so-called “Prison Epistles.” The perfect (indicative and participle) occurs in Romans 16 times; in 1 Corinthians 10 times; in Galatians 4 times; and in 2 Corinthians 3 times (33 times total).

 Cor

:a :b : :

: : : : :

:

:

Image/Event

(A) νεφέλη (B) θαλάσση (C) βαπτισθῆναι (D) βρῶμα

(E) πόμα (E) πέτρα (F) ἐπιθυμηταί/ (G) εἰδωλολατρία (H) πορνεύειν

(I) πειράζειν τὸν Χριστόν

(J) γογγύζειν

Num : – ; Num : – 

Num : – 

Exod : –  Exod : Num : Exod : Num : – 

Exod : Exod : — Exod :

Nomos

[cd; ; b]  — [ – ]  [] ὀπισθότονος ἀνίατος [] θυμὸς ἀσπίδων ἀνίατος [] ἐν ἡμέρᾳ [] τὰ βέλη μου

[c; a] — — [b; ; a]

Deut 

Table 2.13: Synopsis of 1 Cor 10:1 – 11 and LXX Parallels

?? [ – ]

, , 

 ,  — b; b; cd,  –  – ;   –   –   –  [?] not Sinai —

LXX Ps 

 – , ; 

b

[] [:] a  – ; ;   – ; 

[:]  –  [] [:] []

LXX Ps 

—

—

b,  b — [] —

,  []  — a, , []

LXX  Esdr : – 

[:; a]

[:c]

[:b] —

:,  –  :

: : — —

Wisdom

2.7 Additional Tables

95

Part Two: Secondary-Level Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries, Homilies, and Other Exegetical Writings

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries 3.1 Introduction: Paul and the Commentary Tradition 3.1.1 Pauline Patterns The four studies of Pauline exegesis in the preceding chapter led to a twofold conclusion. On the one hand, in all of Hans Windisch’s “midraschartige Stücke” one finds a phenomenon that can be broadly characterized as “sequential exegesis,” in which words or themes drawn from a biblical lemma are sequentially elaborated and interpreted. Such sequential patterns vary, however, in terms of (1) whether the biblical lemma is cited and whether citation formulae are used, (2) the length of the biblical lemma, (3) the presence of paraphrase, (4) what degree of control the lemma exercises over Paul’s argument, (5) whether exegesis proceeds forward or backward through the lemma—i. e. whether the lemma is considered a string of lexemes or whether Paul orders a lemma according to noun phrase, verb phrase, and prepositional phrase (etc.), and (6) how extensively Paul explores the meaning of a given biblical word and whether he offers multiple interpretations. Considering these variables, one finds in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 a species of sequential exegesis unique within the Pauline corpus. Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34 distinguishes itself by its (1) implicit (without formula) interpretation of (2) a midlength biblical lemma (Exod 34:29 – 35) consisting in (3) an alternation of philosophically-oriented paraphrase and modified citation, whose topics (4) tightly govern the sequence of Paul’s thought. Unlike the exegeses of Galatians and Romans, which cycle back to important words and phrases, Paul’s exegesis of Exod 34:29 – 35 (5) moves resolutely forward through the text only once, picking up and expounding key words and phrases. In this way, (6) Paul treats his Exod 34:29 – 35 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 more selectively but also in less depth than he does Gen 21:9 – 10 in Gal 4:21– 31, Gen 15:6 in Rom 4:3 – 25, and Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7. These latter three “midraschartige Stücke,” with their nearly atomistic focus on a single verse, constitute the Pauline norm against which 2 Cor 3:7– 18 stands out in stark relief. Nonetheless, Paul’s sequential exegesis of Exodus in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 is nowhere near as cursory as his rapid, allusive exegesis of Exodus 13 – 17 in 1 Cor 10:1– 5.

100

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

3.1.2 The Commentary Tradition Given the unique exegetical pattern of 2 Cor 3:7– 18, in the present chapter I will extend my study to the Hellenistic commentary tradition, wherein the sequential exegetical principle provides the definitive characteristic binding together several different literary genres. The forms and patterns that will be encountered here, however, also admit of far greater variety than those surveyed in the corpus Paulinum. Hence, there is a need to be selective about which texts to study. But how does one make such a selection? What portion of “the Hellenistic commentary tradition” best illuminates Paul’s exegesis? Defining the term “commentary” itself (like defining the term “midrash”) is fraught with methodological difficulties. The Greek word ὑπόμνημα might denote documents as diverse as a legal record or catalogue, a medical or geographical “treatise,” the Alexandrian text-critical scholia on Homer and Hesiod, a philosophical commentary on Plato or Aristotle, or simply a set of lecture notes or a memory aid for an orator.¹ Even if one were to adopt the more narrow definition of ὑπόμνημα as “a running exegetic commentary on literary texts that was written on a separate scroll from the commented text and was generally extensive in scope,”² a complete study of the various patterns of Hellenistic and early-Roman commentary, including a discussion of their Sitz im Leben, would require a different monograph. Neither is the ὑπόμνημα the only genre in which sequential exegesis takes place. A brief sketch of the history of commentary writing is therefore in order—of Hellenistic commentaries more generally and of Jewish commentary in particular—as a means of narrowing the comparative field. The composition of independent, exegetic commentary is not novel to Greek literature of the Classical and the Hellenistic eras. Early witnesses to the commentary tradition are extant in the scribal writings of Mesopotamia, dating from the eighth century B.C.E. Despite being worlds and centuries apart from the subject of our current inquiry, several features of the ancient Mesopotamian

 Franco Montanari, “Hypomnema,” PW (=Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World: Antiquity [ed. H. Cancik and Helmuth Schneider; 16 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2002]), 6:642– 43. For a study of commentaries on classical texts, see Gibson and Kraus, The Classical Commentary. See also, more recently, the volume-length treatment of commentary traditions, ranging from eighth-century Akkadian literature to Servius’s commentary on Vergil, in DSD 19 (2012): 249 – 484.  Montanari, “Hypomnema,” 6:642– 43.

3.1 Introduction: Paul and the Commentary Tradition

101

commentary, as described in a recent article by Uri Gabbay,³ deserve mention here. First, commentaries in ancient Mesopotamia, like Hellenistic commentaries, did not exist simply to clarify the text, but arose in response to a multifaceted complex of religious and cultural stimuli. Initially, the writing of commentaries was reserved almost exclusively for sacred texts attributed to divine origin (e. g. the god Ea). These were primarily divinatory texts. Literary epics such as Gilgamesh received no commentary, although they could be invoked to resolve lexical questions in other works. While such commentaries were originally composed in the context of the royal court, after the fall of the Babylonian empire, Akkadian commentaries continued to be written on canonical Babylonian texts as scribal exercises for training and transmission purposes.⁴ Gabbay traces the rise of Mesopotamian commentary to at least two related stimuli: Sumero-Babylonian bilingualism and the need to re-contextualize divinatory omens.⁵ Corresponding to this first pressure were the ṣâtu commentaries, which presented Sumerian omens with Akkadian translations. These commentaries were linear and followed the sequence of the base text. Corresponding to a second pressure—the need to reapply old divinatory texts to contemporary phenomena—there arose a second form of commentary, the mukallimtu form. Here, the commentator arranged and categorized omens thematically.⁶ Although the mukallimtu commentary ceased to be written in the Achaemenid/Persian period, its content and methods were incorporated in ṣâtu commentaries during the reign of the Seleucids.⁷ Students of the Essene scriptural commentaries discovered in the caves at Qumran will recognize in this division a rough correspondence to the classification of pesharim into the continuous and thematic varieties.⁸ This division represents a more universal aspect of commentaries: that there is always a tension between linear and thematic principles of exegesis, as there is a tension between the priority of the text and the priority of communal or official experience (e. g., the observance of an astrological phenomenon, the advent of the Teacher of

 Uri Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia and Their Relation to Early Hebrew Exegesis,” DSD 19 (2012): 267– 312.  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 267, 270 – 1.  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 271.  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 274.  Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 274.  For a detailed comparison of Mesopotamian and Essene commentaries, see Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 293 – 308.

102

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Righteousness, or the hegemony of Rome).⁹ Mesopotamian commentaries bear witness to the fact that just as texts are historicized, so history is textualized, in a hermeneutical circle of communal storytelling and reinterpretation. Before moving on to the Hellenistic situation, one further connection between it and the Mesopotamian tradition warrants mentioning: the role played by multilingualism. Just as Sumero-Akkadian bilingualism spurred the need for commentary in the Neo-Akkadian literature, so the trilingualism of Hellenistic Judaism undoubtedly stimulated the production of a large variety of commentary literatures during the Second Temple period. The Hellenistic era was, after all, a period in which political expansion fostered unprecedented cultural exchange and the dissolution of linguistic boundaries. Just as the prevalence of popular spoken Aramaic would prompt the emergence of new biblical literatures, rewritten Bible, and targumim, so the rendering of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek at the legendary request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus would stimulate not merely the translation of the Septuagint itself, but the need for a new body of commentaries for the Hellenophone Jewish diaspora, explaining the grammatical, syntactical, and theological novelties introduced by the Greek scriptures. If one is looking to draw diachronic, intercultural connections, one sees in the Hellenistic onomastica and, later, in Origen’s Hexapla, certain (albeit, distant) resemblances to the bilingual Mesopotamian ṣâtu commentary. The Greek and Latin commentary traditions that grew up around the Mediterranean followed a different course than their Mesopotamian cousins. While still religiously motivated in origin, Greek commentaries during their Hellenistic floruit developed in new ways, particularly regarding the kind of questions they entertained and their posture vis-à-vis the texts they interpreted. Importantly, Greek commentary began not with explication of omens or divination, but with a defense of epic poetry, particularly the gods of Homer. Despite their later literary focus, theological concerns provided the initial stimulus for commentary production. In the sixth century B.C.E., some two centuries later than the earliest extant Mesopotamian commentaries, Theagenes of Rhegium defended Homeric anthropomorphism of the gods through allegorical exegesis;¹⁰ he was followed in this task by Metrodorus of Lampsacus in the fifth

 Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 274, notes that both forms of earlier Cuneiform commentaries were interwoven with one another and supplemented by oral lore in the Achaemenid and Seleucid periods.  Francesca Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” DSD 19 (2012): 399 – 441, esp. 401.

3.1 Introduction: Paul and the Commentary Tradition

103

century.¹¹ This practice would have a long and fruitful Nachleben not only in later Homeric but also in Platonic, Stoic, Jewish, and Christian commentaries. That Homer was commented upon and defended first as a theologian provides an initial demonstration of the religious origins of Greek commentary. Similarly, our first substantively extant Greek commentary is not a literary or grammatical treatment of Homer but a theological commentary on the Orphic cosmogony found in the Derveni Papyrus (the Babylonian scribes too wrote a commentary on their creation epic, Enuma Elish).¹² At least in these initial stages, there seems to be some similarity in the religious origins of commentary in Mesopotamia and Greece. Whereas Mesopotamian commentaries continued in this religious vein through the Persian and Seleucid periods, Greek commentaries, particularly in Alexandria, took a turn (at least in part) toward grammatical and literary concerns. For Aristarchus Samothrax, the most famous and influential of the Alexandrian critics, poetic texts like Homer existed for entertainment, not teaching.¹³ Aristarchus’s commentary on Herodotus likewise evinces a grammatical focus rather than an evaluation of historiographical truth and purpose.¹⁴ In the Hellenistic Greek commentary tradition one also witnesses the rise of the so-called “polemical commentary,” in which a text is commented upon to demonstrate its author’s errors, rather than their revealed wisdom. This is evinced in the second century B.C.E. by Hipparchus of Nicaea’s commentary on Aratus’s Phaenomena, and later in the early Christian period by Origen’s Contra Celsum. ¹⁵ This is quite a far cry from the reverential and sacred nature of commentary production in Mesopotamia. Of course, the predominantly literary emphasis of many Hellenistic commentary cultures had important exceptions. Not only did Homer continue to be viewed as a theologian worthy of allegorical defense by Stoic and Neo-Platonic commentators. Commentaries on Plato, composed by Middle- and Neo-Platonic authors, take a distinctly more reverential tone, as a natural corollary to their didactic function among the burgeoning Platonic schools. Commentary, moreover,

 See Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 433. For Theagenes’ allegorical exegesis of the battle of the Homeric gods, see 8, frg. 2 DK; for Metrodorus, see 61, frgs. 3 – 4 DK.  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 434; A. Lamedica, “Il Papiro di Derveni come commentario: Problemi formali,” in Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo 2 – 9 September 1989 (2 vols.; ed. A. H S. El-Mosalamy; Cairo: Ain Shams University, Center of Papyrological Studies, 1992), 1:325 – 33.  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 426.  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 429.  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 432.

104

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

was a broad practice that flourished not only in Alexandria, but also in Pergamum. The creative energy surrounding commentary production in these two centers did not fizzle out after a few decades. Rather, as Francesca Shironi notes, “Alexandrian and Pergamean scholarship continued to thrive during the Roman period and expanded in the Mediterranean reaching Rome and beyond.”¹⁶ Finally, when considering the Hellenistic commentary tradition, it is important to remember that a complete picture of the phenomenon comes only when we look beyond the genre ὑπόμνημα. As Schironi has pointed out, textual commentary as a literary function was carried out in the Hellenistic and Roman periods in a wide variety of genres. Among these other genres, of primary interest for this study are the σύγγραμμα, or the exegetical monograph, and of course the Greco-Roman letter. The former, the σύγγραμμα, although being thematically centered, also often follows a base text, lemma by lemma, and is notoriously hard to distinguish from a ὑπόμνημα.¹⁷ In the final assessment, “even if technically speaking only hypomnemata are real commentaries, a survey conceived from a comparative perspective needs to include other texts ‘commenting on’ canonical authors in order to have a sufficiently complete picture of what Greek commentators were doing.”¹⁸ If this is true of Hellenistic Greek commentaries in general, due to the paucity of evidence for Hellenistic commentaries, it is even truer for the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition, to which Paul’s letters and Philo’s treatises belong. In short: commentary production was not an isolated scholarly phenomenon during the Hellenistic period, but a diverse and rapidly-developing practice of formalized lemmatic exegesis that expanded naturally from several scholarly regions (Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Lower Egypt, Palestine) to reach the whole of the Mediterranean, readily adapting itself to a variety of literary genres.

3.1.3 Plotting Pauline Exegesis: A Way Forward The utility of letting Paul define the pattern of exegesis should now be apparent. With the pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 in mind, one need not survey the entire commentary tradition in equal detail. Rather, one can comb this literature for paral-

 Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 402.  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 407, 428 – 9. See particularly the dispute surrounding the genre of Didymus’s On Demosthenes (Speeches 9 – 11, 13) preserved in P. Berol. inv. 9780 and found in the same house of Hermoupolis as the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary (P. Berol. inv. 9782).  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 400.

3.1 Introduction: Paul and the Commentary Tradition

105

lel material. The other three Pauline patterns discussed in the preceding chapter will likewise play an important heuristic role, helping to identifying material related to Paul’s exegesis and providing filters to isolate the best parallels for the pericope in question. In the present chapter, I will focus on the species of the Hellenistic commentary tradition which are most explicitly sequential and lemmatic in their organization: the philosophical school commentary, particularly the Jewish variety composed and compiled by Philo of Alexandria, as well as the biblical commentaries discovered at Qumran. After a survey of all three of Philo’s commentary series on the Pentateuch, I will focus my attention on a particular pattern in the Allegorical Commentary that closely resembles Paul’s in 2 Corinthians and trace a similar exegetical pattern in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary. After this examination of Greek commentaries, I will turn to the Hebrew commentary tradition and survey several patterns extant in the works discovered at Qumran, with special attention to the thematic pesharim. Clearly, none of these texts belong to precisely the same genre. Philo’s treatises in the Allegorical Commentary are notoriously difficult to describe. Many scholars think of them as ὑπομνήματα. Because of their topical titles, however, one might also think of them as akin to συγγράμματα, or exegetical monographs, in which Philo’s sequential exegesis of the biblical text is interwoven with traditional material drawn from a variety of sources, including synagogue homilies, and roughly keyed into a broader theme.¹⁹ At any rate, their distinction from the Platonic commentary can be seen by comparing them with the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, which is clearly a ὑπόμνημα. The Essene pesharim, for their part, are also somewhat sui generis, although potentially related to Mesopotamian commentaries or the emergent inner-biblical exegesis of the book of Daniel. These generic distinctions hardly matter, however, given that the function of textual commentary in this period had spread across a wide variety of literary genres. The goal is to discover patterns of exegesis similar to Paul’s in both form and content, in order to better understand how Paul’s exegesis of Exodus functions in 2 Corinthians and how 2 Corinthians contributes to our picture of the Jewish commentary tradition in the first century of the common era.

 For a discussion of the difficulty of precisely determining the genre of the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary, see James Royse, “The Works of Philo,” in Kamesar, Cambridge Companion to Philo, 32– 64, esp. 39; and Albert C. Geljon and David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (PACS 4; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 6 – 10, who conclude that the treatises of the Allegorical Commentary are sui generis.

106

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria 3.2.1 Introduction In surveying the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition, Philo of Alexandria’s three commentary series on the Pentateuch offer some of the most illuminating parallels to Paul’s exegesis. At one point, the case was made that this superlative belonged instead to the exegetical writings discovered at Qumran, particularly because of the similarity of their apocalyptic eschatology and messianic expectation.²⁰ But this creates an unnecessary dichotomy. On the one hand, there can be no doubt that the discovery of the scrolls at Qumran greatly improved our understanding of apocalyptic and messianic Judaism and as such, their relevance to Paul is indisputable. However, in recent decades, scholars have begun to reaffirm Philo’s importance as a witness to Paul’s spiritual and intellectual matrix for a number of cogent reasons.²¹ (1) First, both Philo and Paul were first-century Jews who spoke and wrote in Greek and quote almost exclusively from versions

 This view dominated the field in the second half of the twentieth century after the discovery of the scrolls. Some representative voices in the discussion of Pauline exegesis include: Timothy Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and the Pauline Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); and James A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,” in Evans and Sanders, Scriptures of Israel, 98 – 117, esp. 98: “The type of exegesis found at Qumran is largely the same as is found in the New Testament.” On 2 Cor 3:7– 4:6 in particular, see Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected,” 644: “The motif of metamorphosis may be ‘hellenistic terminology;’ but the motif of what van Unnik calls ‘transfiguration by vision’ is rooted rather in Palestinian Jewish motifs. At least, so I should prefer to explain it.”  For a general treatment of the unwarranted neglect of Philo in light of other contemporaneous material, such as the Qumran corpus, see Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Philo Has Not Been Used Half Enough’: the Significance of Philo of Alexandria for the Study of the New Testament,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 251– 269, esp. 252; see also idem, “The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins,” in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003) (ed. Roland Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr; WUNT 172; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 2004), 21– 52. I agree with the consensus position, which considers it unlikely that Paul had direct knowledge of Philo’s commentaries. Similarities in their thought and exegesis arise primarily from their common training in Hellenistic Jewish tradition; and secondarily, as I argue in this study, from Paul’s encounter with Hellenistic Jewish tradition in Corinth. For a recent reassessment of the question, suggesting Paul’s direct knowledge of Philonic tradition through the Jerusalem synagogues, see Gudrun Holtz, “Von Alexandrien nach Jerusalem: Überlegungen zur Vermittlung philonisch-alexandrischer Tradition an Paulus,” ZNW 105 (2014): 228 – 263.

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

107

of the Septuagint.²² Whatever religious affinities Paul may have shared with the Essenes, Pharisees, and other Palestinian Jewish sects, the language and thought-world of the scriptures that he quoted clearly has a major impact on his interpretation. As is well known, ancient exegetes were highly attuned to the grammatical and lexical particularities of the biblical text. Chapter two of this study demonstrated how closely Paul’s exegesis and rhetoric adhere to Greek scriptural vocabulary. Therefore, it is no minor similarity that both men read, taught, and preached largely from the Septuagint. It is especially important that Paul, like Philo, knew and engaged the Wisdom of Solomon, an Alexandrian work originally composed in Greek with philosophical (particularly Platonizing) tendencies.²³ (2) Second, both Philo and Paul employ figural readings of the Bible, which they call “allegorical.”²⁴ (3) Third, following on the last two observations, both Philo and Paul develop their theological exegeses, albeit to differ For studies of Philo’s Bible, see especially Peter Katz, Philo’s Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and Its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950); Gregory E. Sterling, “The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Text,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 415 – 434; and James Royse, “Some Observations on the Biblical Text of Philo’s De Agricultura,” SPhA 22 (2012): 111– 29; idem, “The Text of Philo’s De Abrahamo,” SPhA 20 (2008): 151– 65; idem, “The Text of Philo’s De Virtutibus,” SPhA 18 (2006): 73 – 101; and idem, “The Text of Philo’s Legum Allegoriae,” SPhA 12 (2000): 1– 28. The literature on Paul’s biblical text is vast; he clearly used the LXX, and likely knew a Hebrew version and/or the Aramaic targumim. We must thus reckon with a vir trilinguis. For Paul’s use of the LXX, see Craig A. Evans, “‘It Is Not As Though the Word of God Had Failed’: an Introduction to Paul and the Scriptures of Israel,” in idem and Sanders, Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 13 – 17, esp. 14. Paul claims for himself facility in Hebrew or Aramaic (Phil 3:5) and his familiarity with a Hebrew text of the Bible has been argued on the basis of Romans 16:20. See Dochhorn, “Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit”; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 38.  Paul’s knowledge and use of Wisdom of Solomon 13 – 15 (or a similar tradition) in Romans 1:18 – 32 has been recognized ever since Eduard Grafe, “Das Verhältniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salmonis,” in Theologische Abhandlungen: Carl von Weizsäcker zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage 11. December 1892 (ed. Adolf von Harnack et al.; Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1892), 251– 86, who postulated a relationship between these texts. For a recent treatment of the subject, see Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human.” Philo’s use of the Wisdom of Solomon is far less controversial, given the probable Alexandrian provenance of the latter. According to Sterling, “Interpreter of Moses,” 425, Philo cites or echoes Wisdom of Solomon 32 times.  The presence of allegory has often been downplayed by scholars who understand Gal 4:21– 31 as a species of typology. I do not think that these elements are mutually exclusive. See Michael Cover, “‘Now and Above; Then and Now’ (Gal 4:21– 31): Platonizing and Apocalyptic Polarities in Paul’s Eschatology,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letters (ed. M. W. Elliott, S. Hafemann, and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 220 – 229.

108

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

ing degrees, with recourse to popular Hellenistic philosophy, particularly MiddlePlatonism. This is true most extensively in the thought of Philo, whose dominant Platonism may at times be tinged or transformed by the vocabulary of Stoicism. Paul is similar: while several major recent treatments of Paul have emphasized the apostle’s debt to Stoic categories of thought, his use of popular Platonism in his letters, especially in the Corinthian correspondence, is likewise undeniable.²⁵ (4) Fourth, both Philo and Paul were Jews of the Diaspora. Paul’s purported rabbinic education at the feet of R. Gamaliel notwithstanding,²⁶ both men were educated in and subsequently taught in Greek-speaking synagogues, προσευχαί, and/or private houses.²⁷ (5) Fifth, both Philo and Paul used Greek rhetorical forms in their writings, although clearly Philo’s training was more advanced.²⁸ Whereas Philo attended the gymnasium in Alexandria and continued to higher levels of education, the precise contours of Paul’s Greek education are more difficult to determine. The relative paucity of classical vocabulary and references in Paul’s letters suggested to Martin Hengel that Paul did not have a standard Greek rhetorical education, but that is by no means the consensus. The precise contours of Paul’s education remain an open question.²⁹ (6) Sixth, both men were leaders of Jewish communities whose paths eventually led them into conflict with and direct appeal to the power of Rome. This can be illustrated by the  Major proponents of this view include: Gerhard Sellin, “Einflüsse philonischer Logos-Theologie in Korinth: Weisheit und Apostelparteien (1Kor 1– 4),” in Deines, Philo und das Neue Testament, 165 – 172; idem, Der Streit; Horsley, Wisdom and Spiritual Transcendence; Jerome MurphyO’Connor, Keys to Second Corinthians; idem, “Philo and 2 Cor. 6:14– 7:1,” RB 95 (1988): 55 – 69; Gregory E. Sterling, “Wisdom among the Perfect”; and Aune, “Anthropological Duality.”  For Paul’s Jewish education, see Phil 3:5, Gal 1:14, and Acts 22:3; Paul’s self-description as Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων (Phil 3:5) corroborates the suggestion in Acts 21:40 that Paul spoke to the Jews of Jerusalem in Hebrew or Aramaic (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Acts 21:40). While scholars have often presumed that these verses allude to Aramaic, see the article by Steven E. Fassberg, “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?” CBQ 74 (2012): 263 – 280, who argues that Hebrew was a spoken language in the first century C.E.  For the Sitz im Leben of Philo’s commentaries, see Sterling, “School of Sacred Laws,” 148 – 64; for Paul, see Stanley Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26 (1984): 59 – 82, esp. 65 – 68.  Seminal in this line of inquiry was the dissertation of Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt. Bultmann’s rhetorical approach to Paul has been further advanced by (e. g.) Betz, Galatians, and Stowers, Diatribe, both of which were encountered in chapter two. For a critical assessment of Betz and the rhetorical approach to Paul more broadly, see David E. Aune, Religious Studies Review 7 (1981): 323 – 28.  See Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul. For a recent study arguing against Paul’s formal rhetorical education, see Ryan S. Schellenberg, Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10 – 13 (Early Christianity and its Literature 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013).

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

109

fact that the critical vitae of both men have traditionally (and in Paul’s case, controversially) been anchored by the date of their confrontation with particular Roman authorities: Philo, by his leadership of the Alexandrian-Jewish embassy to the emperor Gaius Caligula in 38/39 C.E. in Rome and Paul, by his purported confrontation with the Gallio, the Proconsul of Achaea, in ca. 51 C.E. in Corinth.³⁰ (7) Finally, to move from this last historical observation to a theological one, both Philo and Paul were Jews whose religion pointed them in a universal rather than a sectarian direction. Their Judaism was one which they thought should appeal to Greeks and Romans as well. As Gregory Sterling has concisely put it: Philo may be described either as a particular universalist or a universal particularist; Paul, it seems, is clearly the former (insofar as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for all peoples, not just one nation).³¹ Thus, if Paul’s apocalypticism and eschatology have certain similarities with the views of the Essenes, he likewise shares a universalist disposition with Philo.³² Both of these aspects of the apostle’s religion— his similarities with the Essenes and his ethical interpretation of the Law—may ultimately be traceable to his affiliation with the Pharisees (Phil 3:5); this suggestion, however, remains tentative, given the difficulty modern scholarship has had in trying to describe historical Pharisees in the pre-70 C.E. period, not to mention determining Paul’s particular stripe of it.³³

 For Philo’s autobiographical account of the Embassy to Gaius in ca. 38/39 C.E., see Legatio ad Gaium. A second, related embassy by Jewish and Greek delegations in 41 C.E., this time to Claudius, is attested in Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrians (CPJ 153), which mentions the “two embassies” (δύο πρεσβείας), the first of which may in fact have been the embassy of Philo, which “remained [in Rome] to continue [its] work under the new princeps [Claudius]” after the assassination of Gaius (CPJ 2:51). See further Cover, “Reconceptualizing Conquest”; Maren Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (TSAJ 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976). Paul’s appearance before Gallio the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), considered the “lynch pin of Pauline Chronology” by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, if historical, can be dated to ca. 51 C.E. on the basis of an inscription at Delphi (ca. 50 – 52), based on a letter from the emperor Claudius, which names Gallio. See Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth (3rd ed.; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2002 [1983]), 161– 169, 219 – 21. On the other hand, Tatum, New Chapters, has made the inversely strong claim that no absolute chronology of Paul’s journeys is possible.  I first heard this formulation from Gregory Sterling in a doctoral seminar on Philo at the University of Notre Dame in the Spring Term of 2009. See also Birnbaum, Place of Judaism.  There are, of course, critical differences between Paul’s and Philo’s universalism; see, famously, their contrasting views on the import of physical circumcision in Galatians and Mig. 92– 93, respectively.  N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 1997), 26, identifies Paul more confidently as a “Shammaite

110

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

3.2.2 Philo’s Three Commentaries on the Pentateuch In the years since the pioneering study of Valentin Nikiprowetsky, Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie,³⁴ older contested caricatures of Philo as a highly original Hebrew-speaking philosopher³⁵ and mystagogue,³⁶ or (the pejorative inverse) as an eclectic “jackdaw”³⁷ and “inveterate rambler,”³⁸ have given way to a stable scholarly consensus: Philo as scriptural exegete.³⁹ Positing an exegetical center to Philo’s thought does not, of course, invalidate quests to better understand the fascinating philosophical and religious aspects of his writings, nor does it solve all the problems inherent in his corpus. The question of our ability to detect Philo’s exegetical sources, which Philo himself mentions several times in his works,⁴⁰ and the degree to which Philo’s incorporation of these sources disturbs the unity of his thought remain hotly debated issues. On the one hand, scholars like Wilhelm Bousset, Robert Goulet, and Thomas Tobin all argue, to differing degrees, that Philo’s sources are detectable through the observation of certain glaring inconcinnities present in his works.⁴¹ On the other hand, Jacques Cazeaux has argued for a hidden-yet-perva-

Pharisee.” On the subject of universalism among the Tannaim, see Marc Hirshman, “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries,” HTR 93 (2000): 101– 15. On the difficulty of reconstructing the views of pre-70 Pharisees, see John P. Meier, “The Quest for the Historical Pharisee: A Review Essay on Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer,” CBQ 61 (1999): 713 – 22.  Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie: son caractère et sa portée, observations philologiques (Leiden: Brill, 1977).  Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2nd ed.; Structure and Growth of Philosophic Systems from Plato to Spinoza 2; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948 [1947]).  Erwin R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935).  E. R. Dodds, “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One,’” CQ 22 (1928): 129 – 141, esp. 132.  F. C. Colson, “General Introduction,” Philo (12 vols; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 1:x.  So, recently, Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997). One also finds traces of this view in Wolfson, Philo, 95 – 96; 188 – 94.  See especially David Hay, “References to Other Exegetes,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (idem, ed.; BJS 232; Atlanta: Scholars: 1991), 81– 97; idem, “Philo’s References to Other Allegorists,” SPh 6 (1979 – 80): 41– 75; and more recently, Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 77– 129.  See especially the work of Wilhelm Bousset, Jüdische-Christlicher Schultrieb in Alexandria und Rom: Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Irenäus (FRLANT, NF 6; Göttingen, 1915); Thomas Tobin, S.J., The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS 14; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983);

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

111

sive thematic unity in Philo’s treatises.⁴² David Runia represents the middleground held by many Philonic scholars, that Philo’s corpus, while clearly not a unified system, nonetheless possesses an overall theological or “architectonic” coherence.⁴³ In the current context, my first task is to present, in a concise fashion, an overview of Philo’s patterns of exegesis in each of his three major commentary series on the Pentateuch (The Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, the Allegorical Commentary, and the Exposition of the Law). Thankfully, we are now in the enviable position of having several excellent and accessible introductions to the Philonic corpus, so that a complete overview of Philo’s work is no longer necessary.⁴⁴ Here, rather, I will offer illustrative introductions to the patterns of exegesis in each of Philo’s series. The two commentary series which stand in closest relation to one another, formally speaking, are the Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary. In all likelihood, these were the first two series that Philo composed. The Quaestiones are structurally the simplest of Philo’s series, and clearly related to the pedagogical origins of Hellenistic Greek commentary discussed earlier. They consist in a series of questions and answers about biblical lemmata from Genesis and Exodus, arranged sequentially according to biblical verse, and exemplify the Alexandrian critical goal of ζήτησις. The Quaestiones survive in large part only in Armenian translation.

and Robert Goulet, La Philosophie de Moïse (Paris: J. Vrin, 1987). The thesis that Philo should be viewed primarily as an exegete and preserver of the traditions of the Hellenistic synagogue received critical support from the publications of the Philo Institute in the 1970s, particularly the Studia Philonica. See Earl A. Hilgert, “Introducing Studia Philonica,” SPh 1 (1972): 1; and Robert G. Hammerton-Kelly, “Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegomena to an Analysis of His Writings,” SPh 1 (1972): 3 – 26.  Jacques Cazeaux, La trame et la chaîne: ou les structures littéraires et l’exégèse dans cinq des traités de Philon d’Alexandrie (ALGHJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1983).  David Runia, “Structure,” 246, where Runia positions himself somewhere between the views of V. Nikiprowetsky and J. Cazeaux; and idem, Philo: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (PACS 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 20, where Runia accuses Tobin et alii of turning Philo into a mere “compiler” or “exegetical photocopier.”  In addition to Sterling, “Interpreter of Moses,” noted above, see Royse, “Works of Philo”; Adam Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo”; Jenny Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973 – 87), 3.2:819 – 70; and Yehoshua Amir, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” in Mikra: Text, Translation & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity (ed. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004 [1988]), 421– 453.

112

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, by contrast, is his most complex work. It was Nikiprowetsky who, in his study of De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis, first recognized and clearly articulated the alternation of quaestio and solutio as one major structuring feature of the Allegorical Commentary.⁴⁵ Runia summarizes Nikiprowetsky’s thesis in the following manner: The chief reason that the structure of Philo’s exegesis [in the Allegorical Commentary] is so badly misunderstood must be sought … in the failure to recognize the ‘mother-cell’ of his exegetical developments, namely the quaestio followed by a solutio …. Any attempt at producing a synthetic analysis of this progression is foredoomed to failure. Philo’s exegetical treatises are in fact literary adaptations and developments of the basic method of the Quaestiones in Genesin et Exodum. ⁴⁶

Runia overstates the importance of the quaestio in this quotation, and more recently, he has revised his position, arguing against Nikiprowetsky that only certain treatises in the Allegorical Commentary show an intrinsic link with the parallel part of the Quaestiones. ⁴⁷ Nonetheless, Nikiprowetsky’s fundamental insight remains valid and suggests the priority of the Quaestiones in many cases.⁴⁸ Philo’s nuanced textual analysis in both of these series suggests that they were composed for advanced Jewish students of the Pentateuch, presumably in Philo’s private house-school. His third commentary series, the Exposition of the Law, was composed for a different readership. While it still betrays some of the for-

 Valentin Nikiprowetsky, “L’Exégèse de Philon d’Alexandrie dans le De Gigantibus et le Quod Deus sit Immutabilis,” in David Winston and John Dillon, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus sit Immutabilis (BJS 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983), 5 – 75. See Runia, “Structure,” 226 – 29.  Runia, “Structure,” 227.  See David Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatise De Agricultura,” SPhA 22 (2010): 87– 109, esp. 94: “Even though [Nikiprowetsky’s] analysis works quite well for the treatise Gig.-Deus, it is simplistic to suggest that the method of the question and answer forms the structural basis of all the allegorical treatises.”  Important articles on the Quaestiones include: Borgen and Skarsten, 1971 (cf. Borgen, 1977, 80 – 101); Runia, “Secondary Texts,” 47– 79; Gregory E. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?” in Both Literal and Allegorical, 99 – 123; Abraham Terrian, “The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries,” in Both Literal and Allegorical, 29 – 46; James Royse, “The Original Structure of Philo’s Quaestiones,” SPhA 2 (1991): 109 – 139; and Sze-kar Wan, “Philo’s Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim: A Synoptic Approach,” SBLSP 32 (1993): 22– 53. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 153– 159, represents an important recent departure from the consensus position of the priority or independence of the Quaestiones, arguing that in the Quaestiones, Philo’s “orthodox” Jewish voice emerges as a strong authority in contrast to his defensive tone in the Allegorical Commentary.

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

113

mal features of a commentary, its primarily paraphrastic rather than lemmatic references to the biblical text suggest that the Exposition was composed last of the three series and was aimed at a broader Jewish and pagan audience.⁴⁹ Philo may have conceived the need for a more popular series after his failed political engagement with Rome in the Jewish embassy to Gaius.⁵⁰ In light of this difference in intended audience, the Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary are often labeled esoteric, while the Exposition of the Law is considered exoteric. While all three of Philo’s commentary series hold interest for the student of ancient exegesis, the Allegorical Commentary offers the closest analogue to the kind of sequential exegesis identified in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. In the Allegorical Commentary, sequential lemmatic exegesis provides the substructure for a complex theological discourse. Philo interweaves reflection on multiple biblical passages through both lexical and thematic links,⁵¹ transcending the more rigidly zetematic style of the Quaestiones (which has more in common with scholastic commentary/ criticism on Homer and Plato), while remaining focused on the biblical text (unlike the Exposition of the Law which takes Philo’s paraphrase as its “lemma”). A concrete picture of the different patterns of exegesis employed in Philo’s three commentary series is provided here to complement this thumbnail sketch of his corpus. In tracing overlapping treatments of the same biblical lemma in pairs of treatises, the importance of the Allegorical Commentary for this study will become clear.

3.2.3 Stylistic Unevenness in the Allegorical Commentary Approaching the Allegorical Commentary from this intra-Philonic perspective in itself presents a challenge: which treatise of the Allegorical Commentary is representative of the whole? In the nineteen completely extant treatises, one cannot detect a single overarching exegetical pattern, especially as regards the length of Philo’s typical primary lemma. Philo’s brisk treatment of a large section of Genesis 2– 3 in the Legum allegoriae, along with the relative dearth of secondary lemmata in these treatises, stands in stark contrast to the atomistic treatment of only two (primary) verses of scripture over the course of four treatises on Noah (De agricultura-De plantatione-De ebrietate-De sobrietate), in which the secondary lemmata form the structural vertebrae.  Sterling, “Interpreter of Moses,” 424.  Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 169 – 177, draws particular attention to the role of the embassy in shaping Philo’s program for this series.  Runia, “Structure,” 239 – 40.

114

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

There are two ways to address this unevenness in the Allegorical Commentary. The best, but also the most labor-intensive solution would be to study in depth the structure of each of these treatises in order to create a comprehensive picture, as David Runia has suggested: A structural analysis, made with as few preconceptions as possible, must be made of all the allegorical treatises from Leg. to Somn. Every time a scholar bases conclusions on a small or partial segment, he or she runs the risk of reaching conclusions that are only partially valid and can be controverted or modified in the light of material drawn from other treatises.⁵²

Philonic scholars are currently making important strides toward a comprehensive picture of Philo’s corpus in several ways. New English commentaries on complete treatises are gradually being published in the Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series, under the general editorship of Gregory Sterling.⁵³ The Philo of Alexandria Group at the SBL is supporting this research, providing a venue for commentary authors to workshop their material. A second approach is more modest in its aims. Rather than generating an exhaustive compendium, which catalogues all the details of Philo’s exegetical praxis, this approach focuses instead on Philo’s commentaries which occupy a middle place, i. e., those which focus on a mid-length primary pericope (ca. four to ten verses) and are offset and amplified, but not dominated, by secondary lemmata. This is my proposed method for this section. By taking examples from three of Philo’s “middle treatises,” De gigantibus, Quod Deus sit immutabilis, and De migratione Abrahami, and comparing these treatises with parallel portions of the Quaestiones and the Exposition of the Law, I will present a detailed picture of the basic patterns of exegesis employed by Philo. The first two treatises, Gig.-Deus (treating Gen 6:1– 4a and 6:4b – 12 respectively), actually constitute a single, integral, continuous work on the story of the Watchers and the righteousness of Noah.⁵⁴ These treatises, which were subsequently divided, have been very closely studied and Runia has provided a comprehensive outline of both. Beginning with two examples of Philo’s treatment of biblical lemmata in these treatises will put us on terra firma. A third treatise, De migratione Abrahami, will then be studied. Although one of the “great Abrahamic treatises,” De migratione Abrahami has received comparatively less attention and is thus an attractive text for analysis since it has important substantive over-

 Runia, “Further Observations,” 105 – 138, esp. 113.  The first commentary on this series on an allegorical work, De agricultura, was published by in 2013 by Albert Geljon and David Runia. See Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation.  Colson, Philo, 3:3; Runia, “Structure,” 106.

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

115

laps with both the Quaestiones and the Exposition of the Law and also because in this treatise, as also in De mutatione nominum, “Philo reverts to a procedure reminiscent of that in Gig.-Deus.”⁵⁵

3.2.4 The Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary The relationship between the Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary can be illustrated clearly by a comparison of their respective treatments of Gen 6:3, “Surely my spirit will not abide with these human beings forever, because they are flesh,” in Q.G. 1.90 and Gig. 19 – 57. Philo’s citation of the biblical lemma varies slightly from the LXX text in both commentaries. I print first both the LXX and MT lemmata, followed by Philo’s interpretation in the Quaestiones and Allegorical Commentary. LXX Gen 6:3 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός· “Οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας.” MT Gen 6:3 ‫ויאמר יהוה לא ידון רוחי באדם לעלם בשגם הוא בשר‬ Q.G. 1.90

Զինչ է … Ոչ մնասցէ հոգի իմ ի մարդկան յաւիտեան, վասն զի են նոքա մարմինք. “What is the meaning of the words, ‘my spirit shall not remain in human beings forever, because they are flesh’?”⁵⁶ Gig. 19 “εἶπε” γάρ φησι “κύριος ὁ θεός· οὐ καταμενεῖ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας.”

Philo’s citations agree in most respects with the LXX over the MT. The only variations are (1) Philo’s use of the future indicative instead of the emphatic prohibition (aorist subjunctive) of the LXX and (2) Philo’s omission of the proximal demonstrative (τούτοις). Both of these changes could have resulted from a later scribal emendation of Philo’s quotation, attempting to bring the Old Greek into line with one of the recensional Greek versions (e. g. proto-Theodotion or Aquila), which typically follow the MT tradition.⁵⁷ In light of the numerous differences  Runia, “Structure,” 239.  Trans. adapted from Marcus, Philo, LCL.  Sterling, “Interpreter of Moses,” 430 – 31, illustrates how the interchange between the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive might result from scribal emendation. See, e. g., the modi-

116

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

between Philo’s citation and the MT, as well as the agreement of Q.G. 1.90 and Gig. 19, I think it more likely in this case that (2) the omission of the demonstrative was an intentional move on Philo’s part, in order to universalize the potential reference of τοῖς ἀνθρώποις from “those” specific human beings in Gen 6:2 to human beings more generally, i. e., “the mass of us” (τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡμῖν) with whom the divine spirit does not remain (Gig. 20; cf. Gig. 47).⁵⁸ (For an overview of the structure, see Table 3.1 below.) Table 3.1: Exegetical Structure of Q.G. 1.90 () Question and citation (Gen :)

() Identification of the verse as an oracle () Interpretation of “my spirit”

() Interpretation of “shall not remain in men forever” () Interpretation of “because they are flesh”

“My spirit shall not remain in human beings forever, because they are flesh.” Primary introduction/exposition (a) Divine spirit is not physical movement of air, but intelligence and wisdom. (b) Citation of secondary lemma, LXX Exod :, Bezalel (a) “remain” = “long endure” (a) (Human) flesh, when it succumbs to desire, cannot possess wisdom. (b) Incorporeal (non-humans) spirits do not have trouble understanding, since they have pure understanding (ἄκρατος σύνεσις)⁵⁹ and stability (βεβαίωσις).⁶⁰

This text provides a clear example of Philo’s interpretative method and structure in the Quaestiones. Having (1) cited the lemma and (2) identified its form, he

fied citation of Gen 3:18 (φάγῃ) in Leg. 3.251 (φάγεσαι). Intriguingly, the Armenian of Q.G. 1.90 is the aorist subjunctive, մնասցէ (mnasc‘ē, cognate of the simple Greek verb μένω). This need not indicate an aorist in the Greek Vorlage, since Armenian uses the subjunctive to express futurity. Nonetheless, Philo’s use of the correlative demonstrative in the phrase ἐν δὴ τοῖς τοιούτοις, which echoes the OG, at the outset of Gig. 19 suggests that Philo has the full LXX version in mind, even if he paraphrases the formal citation.  Cf. Gal 4:30, where Paul similarly omits the demonstrative (twice!) in his citation of LXX Gen 21:10, while the OG and the MT both have the demonstrative. It would seem that the omission of a demonstrative was a standard device in allegorical interpretation, where the significance of a word is clearly beyond the plain referent of the text.  The Armenian, անապակ հանճար, contains the alpha-privative as well. Unless otherwise noted, the Greek of the Quaestiones is taken from Ralph Marcus’s retrojection from the Armenian (LCL). No Greek fragment of this quaestio is extant.  հաստատութիւն.

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

117

(3) rejects a certain physical-elemental interpretation of πνεῦμα and instead identifies it with wisdom, interpreting Moses by Moses, as Aristarchus and other Alexandrian scholiasts interpreted Homer by Homer. Thus, Philo explains LXX Gen 6:3 in light of LXX Exod 31:3. The use of secondary lemmata in the Quaestiones, while rare in comparison to the Allegorical Commentary, forms a recognizable part of Philo’s praxis in this commentary series.⁶¹ David Runia has shown that secondary lemmata are also attested in contemporary Middle-Platonic commentaries, such as the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary. ⁶² As such, Philo appears to be following the conventions of scholastic philosophical commentary. He then goes on to comment briefly on each of the successive elements of the citation (4– 5) in sequence. A different pattern emerges when one turns to Philo’s treatment of the same verse in Gig. 19 – 57. Instead of expounding several points about Gen 6:3 in one section, Philo interprets that same verse in a “chapter” of thirty eight sections. A comparative overview of a subsection of this interpretation (Gig. 19 – 27) will illustrate the difference between Philo’s pattern of exegesis in the Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary.⁶³ In Gig. 19, unlike Q.G. 1.90, Gen 6:3 is cited not as a formal question but as part of a transition from the previous interpretation of Gen 6:2. The Allegorical Commentary aims to weave a more rhetorically and thematically unified discourse, even if the underlying commentary form is still visible just below the surface. Philo does not specify in his introductory remarks that the verse is an oracle, since that is the entire premise of the Allegorical Commentary; rather, he offers an initial reflection of the difference between remaining (μένειν) and abiding (καταμένειν) (Gig. 20 – 21), a lexical contrast which is absent from Quaestiones, if Marcus’s retroversion of the Armenian is reliable.⁶⁴ In any event, the discussion of this contrast is much longer in the Allegorical Commentary Philo then turns, as he does in Q.G. 1.90, to a discussion of the meaning of “my spirit.” As in the Quaestiones, a physical definition, “movement of the air,” is pre See Runia, “Secondary Texts.”  Runia, “Further Observations,” 115: “Other Platonic texts are invoked as ‘proof’ of a given interpretation, e. g. at 56.26.”  For a complete analysis of this chapter, see Table 3.6 below.  Ralph Marcus, Philo Sup. 1 (LCL), 57, notes b–c. It is not entirely clear, however, that Marcus accurately retroverts the simple form of the verb rather than the compound form of the verb in the solutio. As noted earlier, in the lemma in the quaestio, the uncompounded form of the Armenian cognate, ոչ մնասցէ, “[he] will not remain,” is used. The solution, to the contrary, seems to employ instead a paraphrastic construction in the present indicative, ոչ կայ մնայ, “[he] does not stay, remain,” i. e. he does not abide indefinitely. Might this be an Armenian rendition of a Greek compound verb καταμένειν in the Vorlage?

118

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

sented first.⁶⁵ This time, however, Philo supports this option with a secondary lemma, Gen 1:2 (Gig. 22), which was absent from the Quaestiones. He then embellishes the second option from the Quaestiones, noting that the divine Spirit is “intelligence and wisdom,” and cites a longer form of the secondary lemma on Bezalel, Exod 31:2– 3 (Gig. 23; cf. Q.G. 1.90). Finally, Philo adds a third secondary lemma, Num 11:17, making the point that the same divine Spirit of knowledge and wisdom that entered Bezalel in his construction of the tabernacle is identical with the spirit of Moses that was shared with the seventy elders (Gig. 24– 27). Already at this early stage in our comparative analysis, several similarities and differences between the Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary have emerged. (1) Philo has followed the same basic sequence in both commentaries, albeit with appropriate rhetorical adaptations: he begins with a citation of the lemma and proceeds to an analysis of its first key word, πνεῦμα. (2) The Allegorical Commentary amplifies and improves this basic structure by taking up the verb καταμένειν in its introductory comment, thus following the sequence of the primary lemma more closely than the Quaestiones and highlighting the key ethical theme of the entire chapter. (3) Likewise, the Allegorical Commentary supplies three secondary lemmata rather than one to expound the scriptural word πνεῦμα.⁶⁶ The addition of Gen 1:2 has the effect of grounding the first physical interpretation of πνεῦμα not only in scientific theory, but in the words of Moses himself. The addition of Num 11:17, by contrast, points beyond the problem of defining what kind of πνεῦμα God is speaking about in Gen 6:3 and looks toward the broader themes of the chapter: on what kind of people besides Bezalel does the divine spirit rest? What is the source of that spirit? Does it remain with some longer than with others?⁶⁷ (4) Finally, Philo’s use of Moses not merely as a prophetic speaker of scripture but as an exemplaric figure in his own right is an important hallmark of the Allegorical Commentary. Mosaic exempla occur quite frequently among Philo’s secondary lemmata. The finality of the Mosaic exem-

 Philo does not always present the literal reading in the Allegorical Commentary as he does here. More typically, in this series, he omits the literal reading or rejects it in order to focus on the allegorical meaning. In the Quaestiones, by contrast, Philo has no problem placing discordant interpretations side by side. See Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, 4.  See Runia, “Secondary Texts,” 47– 79.  The ontology of the divine Spirit in Philo and its relationship to the divinely-inbreathed human spirit is a rich, complex, and ongoing subject of research. Particularly in light of LXX Gen 2:7, Philo’s concept of s/Spirit, like Paul’s, involves some conceptual overlap between its divine hypostatic and anthropological dimensions. The s/Spirit is both cosmic Wisdom and, to a certain degree, coextensive with (or “received by”) human νοῦς (Philo, Fug. 133; cf. Leg. 1.37). See John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 142– 153; Rabens, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God.”

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

119

plum in this first series of secondary lemmata, as well as at the end of the chapter as a whole (see Philo’s allusion to Exod 33:7 in Gig. 54), highlights the paradigmatic centrality of Moses in Philo’s thought and in Second Temple Judaism more broadly. Continuing to trace Philo’s exposition of Gen 6:3 in the Allegorical Commentary, one notes that after this opening salvo on the spirit, Philo returns to his primary biblical lemma in order to fix his attention on its opposite, the flesh (Gig. 28 – 31). In this move, he continues to expand upon the basic treatment in the Quaestiones, reciting the identical portion of Gen 6:3 in both commentaries (Q.G. 1.90 [5]; Gig. 29). In Q.G. 1.90, Philo interprets “flesh” first in an ethical and then in a physical sense. He notes first that wisdom (= spirit) cannot abide with the flesh, insofar as flesh is bound up with desire (ἐπιθυμία). He then makes the metaphysical observation that incorporeal spirits have no trouble seeing nature as it is, since they are not tripped up or encumbered by heavy bodies. Thus abruptly ends the solutio. In the Allegorical Commentary, Philo focuses on the ethical interpretation of “flesh.” He begins by expounding at some length a secondary lemma, Lev 18:6, which is absent from Q.G. 1.90. The pattern of exegesis employed here by Philo (See Table 3.2 below), although used on a secondary text, nonetheless represents in miniature Philo’s usual method of interpreting his primary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary.⁶⁸ Table 3.2: Outline of Gig. 32 – 47 § SBL:⁶⁹ Lev :: “A man, a man shall not go near to any that is akin to his flesh to uncover their shame. I am the Lord.” § Initial explanation § Exposition of (a) “A man, a man”; (b) “go near to anything that is akin to the flesh” § –  Exposition of (c) “go near … to uncover their shame” § –  First exposition of (d) “I am the Lord”: Lord as “good” § –  Second exposition of (d) “I am the Lord”: Lord as “king”

 Runia, “Further Observations,” 123, on Philo’s treatment of secondary lemmata as imitations of the broader pattern: “Moreover, the same procedures can be invoked to deal with a secondary biblical text cited to explain or deepen our understanding of the main text …. This leads to the phenomenon … which can be regarded as a ‘chapter within a chapter.’”  As in my outline of this entire chapter (see Table 3.6 in Section 7, “Additional Tables”), so also in Table 3.2, I have used Runia’s abbreviations (MBL = main biblical lemma; SBL = secondary biblical lemma).

120

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Philo begins with a citation of a biblical lemma (Gig. 32), provides an initial explanation (Gig. 33), and then proceeds to break down and explain the lemma sequentially (Gig. 34– 47). Philo’s double citation and interpretation of “I am the Lord” provides evidence for the practice of offering multiple interpretations of the same verse—a practice which has perhaps left its mark on 2 Cor 3:12– 18. This string of chapters presents a clear illustration of Philo’s sequential exegetical praxis in the Allegorical Commentary. The remainder of Philo’s exegesis of Gen 6:3 in the Allegorical Commentary can be summarized as follows. After his in-depth treatment of Lev 18:6, Philo briefly returns to Gen 6:3 (Gig. 47) in order to facilitate a discussion of the length of the spirit’s remaining with various kinds of souls. The spirit primarily abides with those who, like Moses, possess an inner stability. At first, it might seem that Philo is here departing from the pattern in the Quaestiones. However, Philo may be simply recasting the meaning of his final curious solutio of Q.G. 1.90 in light of the themes in De gigantibus. In particular, the “incorporeal and unsubstantial spirits” of Q.G. 1.90 are revealed in the Allegorical Commentary to be none other than souls like Moses who can separate themselves from the cares of the body. That Moses and virtue are said to be “fixed in the firmness of right reason” (ὀρθοῦ λόγου βεβαιότητι ἱδρυμένον) in Gig. 48 just as the incorporeal spirits are said to possess stability (βεβαίωσις, according to Marcus’s retroversion of the Armenian) may provide a lexical link between the two passages. In any event, Philo subsequently makes his point by expounding a string of four secondary lemmata, Num 14:44 (Gig. 48), Deut 5:31 (Gig. 49), Exod 18:14 (Gig. 50 – 51), and Lev 16:2, 34 (Gig. 52), all lacking from Q.G. 1.90. In the following section of his allegorical treatment, Philo returns once again to the primary lemma in Gig. 53 and then offers one final Mosaic exemplum in Gig. 54. The return to the primary lemma distinguishes the final exemplum as a singular piece of exegesis and as the conclusion to the major discourse of the chapter. This also accounts for the fact that (as Runia notes) the verbal association that binds the catena of secondary lemmata from Num 14:44 through Lev 16:2 does not extend to Exod 33:7.⁷⁰ This last section seems to possess an exegetical life of its own and may well be derived from Philo’s stock of traditional Mosaic exempla. ⁷¹ This ends Philo’s treatment of the portion of Gen 6:3 shared with Q.G. 1.90. The remaining three sections of the chapter, Gig. 55 – 57, elegantly append a discus-

 Runia, “Further Observations,” 134.  For parallel exegeses of Exod 33:7 in the Allegorical Commentary, see Leg. 2.54– 55; 3.46 – 48; Det. 160; Ebr. 100. I will study this collection of passages in depth in chapter six.

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

121

sion of the remainder of Gen 6:3, the one hundred and twenty years, which was treated in separately in Q.G. 1.91.

3.2.5 The Exposition of the Law and the Allegorical Commentary Philo’s typical pattern of exegesis in his third series, the Exposition of the Law, can also be illustrated by comparing it with the Allegorical Commentary. In this case, I will examine parallel treatments of the Abraham cycle (Gen 11:31– 12:9), focusing particularly on Abraham’s migrations from Chaldea and Haran in De Abrahamo (Abr. 62– 88; Exposition of the Law) and De migratione Abrahami (Migr. 176 – 77; 188 – 97; Allegorical Commentary). A preliminary distinction can be made between the scriptural scope of each commentary. In De Abrahamo, Philo paraphrases and comments on Abraham’s migrations in Gen 11:31– 12:9 over the course of twenty six sections (Abr. 62– 88). Contrast this with the two hundred and twenty five sections Philo devotes to the interpretation of 5 verses, LXX Gen 12:1– 4, 6 in De migratione Abrahami. The Exposition of the Law thus moves much more briskly through the biblical text than the Allegorical Commentary. Philo’s basic pattern in the Exposition of the Law is to comment sequentially not on the biblical text itself but on a biblical paraphrase. Although not a “running commentary” in the same sense of the Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary, the series still involves a sequential pattern of exegesis.⁷² Philo begins the relevant section of De Abrahamo with a paraphrase of Gen 11:31– 12:9 (Abr. 62– 67), describing Abram’s migrations from Chaldea to Haran and from Haran to Canaan.⁷³ The difficulty with paraphrases is that one never knows for sure with which biblical verses the author begins and ends. Philo’s mention of Chaldea and some “other place” in the final section of the paraphrase (Abr. 67) suggests that both Gen 11:31 and Gen 12:9 should be included. They will serve as convenient “boundary markers” for the pericope. After his paraphrase (Abr. 62– 67), Philo makes a brief excursus in Abr. 68, noting in an aside to the reader that the scriptures have both a literal and allegorical meaning. On the literal level, the migrations refer to the man Abraham; on the allegorical level, the migrations are made by a certain type of soul. To demonstrate his point, in the subsequent exposition, Philo sets out the allegorical meaning of three terms drawn directly from the paraphrase in Abr. 67. In Abr. 69 – 71, Philo

 Sterling, “General Introduction,” xiii, in Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation.  For an outline of this section of De Abrahamo, see Table 3.7.

122

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

gives an allegorical interpretation of Abraham’s migration ἀπὸ τῆς Χαλδαίων γῆς “from the land of the Chaldeans” (Abr. 67); in Abr. 72– 76, Philo gives an allegorical interpretation of Abraham’s migration εἰς τὴν Χαρραίων γῆν, “to the land of the residents of Haran” (Abr. 67); finally, after providing two intermediary proofs of his reading (Abr. 77– 80; Abr. 81– 84), Philo presents, in Abr. 85 – 87, the allegorical significance of Abraham’s migration εἰς ἕτερον τόπον, “to another place” (Abr. 67) = Gen 12:9, ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Abr. 85, εἰς χώραν ἐρήμην). In all three instances, the allegorical meaning of the migration depends on the significance of the place names: Chaldea, Haran, and wilderness.

3.2.6 Two Philonic Exegeses of Gen 12:4 To better illustrate Philo’s exegetical pattern in the Exposition, I will tighten my focus on a subsection of this passage, Philo’s allegorical interpretation of Haran, and compare it with Philo’s treatment of the same verse(s) in the Allegorical Commentary. Philo addresses this question in the Exposition in Abr. 72– 76. In Abr. 72, he begins by rehearsing the paraphrase from Abr. 67: “This is why it is said that Abram made his first emigration from the land of the Chaldeans to the land of the residents of Haran.” He proceeds in the same section to etymologize “Haran” as “holes” and explain them to be symbols of the bodily orifices, namely, the senses.⁷⁴ The function of human senses, to mediate between the perceptible world and the invisible mind, constitutes an analogical “proof” for the existence of God as the mind of the universe. This proof is based on self-reflection on the human microcosm rather than from the astrological order and the cosmos itself (Abr. 73 – 76). Philo’s treatment of the same question in the Allegorical Commentary, by contrast, begins with the citation of a single verse (Gen 12:4): ‘And Abraham,’ he says, ‘was seventy five years old when he went out from Haran.’ On the number seventy five years, whose import agrees with what has just been said, let us clarify this later. First, let us examine what the significance of Haran is and what Abram’s emigration from it means. (Migr. 176)⁷⁵

Philo’s debt to the Quaestio-Solutio form here in the Allegorical Commentary is clear from the incorporation of indirect questions. Following upon his identifica-

 For Philo’s use of an onomasticon in translating Hebrew names, see Grabbe, Etymology.  Trans. Colson, LCL, lightly adapted.

3.2 Biblical Exegesis in Philo of Alexandria

123

tion of the problem, Philo then presents an explanatory paraphrase, detailing Abram’s previous emigration from Chaldea (Migr. 177). Philo’s patterns of biblical exegesis in his two commentary series appear to be inversions of one another. In the Exposition, Philo begins with an expansive paraphrase (Gen 11:31– 12:9), first orienting the unfamiliar reader with the details of the narrative, and then hones in on a single point. Throughout De Abrahamo, Philo follows this same pattern, moving from paraphrase to commentary, paraphrase to commentary. In the Allegorical Commentary, by contrast, Philo starts with a single verse (Gen 12:4), focuses on the second half of it, and then provides a paraphrase to contextualize it. While the Exposition thus moves from the forest to the tree, the Allegorical Commentary keeps the fir in foreground and only mentions the forest secondarily by way of verbal allusion. Unsurprisingly, the Exposition often appears to present a condensed, popular version of the more detailed exegesis in the Allegorical Commentary. In explaining the name of Haran in the Exposition, Philo offers an etymology and says it signifies the senses (Abr. 72). In the Allegorical Commentary, by contrast, Philo lists the five senses and their respective organs, noting how each organ functions as a kind of “hole” (Migr. 188). Philo likewise arrives at different theological messages in his two exegeses on Haran, due to the “texts” on which they comment. In Abr. 72 – 76, the primary emphasis is on the move from Chaldea to Haran. The etymology of Haran serves to explain Abraham’s first migration, from superstition to accurate sense-perception. As a consequence, the subsequent two secondary lemmata function as proofs of Abraham’s transformation from astrologer to a self-reflecting sage (Abr. 77– 84). In the Allegorical Commentary, by contrast, the etymology of Haran (Migr. 188) ultimately points Philo toward Abraham’s departure from Haran (Migr. 190 – 195).⁷⁶ As such, the secondary lemma Philo introduces in Migr. 196 is the narrative of the prophet Samuel’s eviction of Saul from “among the vessels” (1 Reg 10:22– 23). This becomes an allegory of the sage’s need to quit the concerns of the body and attend to heavenly things (Migr. 197). Of course, Philo does treat Abraham’s departure from Haran in the Exposition as well. There, that second migration is viewed, on the basis of Gen 12:9 (Abr. 85 – 87), as a move into the wilderness, and hence, into solitude. In the Allegorical Commentary, by contrast, Abraham’s move is simply “out from Haran” (Migr. 188 – 197), i. e., out of the concerns of sense-perception. Focused atomistically on Gen 12:4 in the Allegorical Commentary, Philo extrapolates that the sage’s

 The move from Chaldea, of course, also receives extensive comment, especially in Migr. 178 – 186, albeit, prior to the etymology of Haran. See also Migr. 187 and 194.

124

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

movement out of sense-perception signals a move into ecstatic trance, prophecy, and vision. The ultimate goal is not described in terms of contemplative solitude (derived from Gen 12:9), but the soul’s ascent to the realm the vision of the νοητά (Migr. 191), the mind’s pilgrimage to the “father of piety and holiness” (Migr. 194), and noetic “contemplation (ἐπίσκεψις) of the Existent” (Migr. 195). Philo’s choice of citation or paraphrase and his particular exegetical pattern thus determine where Abraham ends up in each commentary series, even when Philo is dealing with portions of the same text from Genesis. This is not to say that Philo never cites biblical lemmata or comments directly on the biblical text in the Exposition, nor to say that he never paraphrases biblical lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary. Paraphrase is a standard practice among composers of Hellenistic ὑπομνήματα. The foregoing analysis merely illustrates Philo’s normal patterns.

3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata and Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 3.3.1 Secondary Biblical Lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary This comparative study of Philo’s exegetical patterns yields some impressive results. Philo, like Paul, employs a “sequential” pattern of exegesis in each of his commentary series. At the outset of this chapter, I also outlined six features that distinguish Paul’s pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 from the other sustained exegetical passages in his letters. In his exegesis of Exod 34:29 – 35, Paul undertakes an implicit interpretation of a mid-length biblical pericope that employs a philosophically oriented paraphrase and moves resolutely forward through the biblical lemma, drawing on key words and phrases. Using this description as the Pauline standard, Philo’s exegetical pattern used for primary biblical texts in the Allegorical Commentary moves too slowly to provide an exact parallel. Some passages in Philo’s Exposition of the Law might provide better parallels, given Paul’s alternation between paraphrase and textual comment; but in the Exposition, the biblical text often recedes too far from view, the paraphrases are too expansive, and Philo treats the text too rapidly. There exists, however, a second, distinct subset of sequential exegeses embedded within the Allegorical Commentary, which we have already encountered in this study: Philo’s exposition of secondary biblical lemmata. In these exegeses, Philo employs the same sequential pattern as in his treatment of primary texts, but on a smaller scale. The length and scope of these exegeses thus mirror Paul’s pattern more exactly. Additionally, these secondary lemmata are often not explicitly

3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata

125

cited or flagged by Philo, due to their amplificatory role within the commentary, much in the way Paul implicitly introduces his exegesis of Exodus 34. Finally, Philo’s expositions of secondary lemmata, while clearly controlled by the biblical text itself, also follow a thematic principle. For these reasons, it seems likely that illuminating parallels to Paul’s sequential pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 may be found among Philo’s exegeses of secondary biblical lemmata. The interpretation of secondary lemmata in Philo’s commentaries is welldocumented phenomenon. David Runia has drawn attention to the unique literary role of these exegetical units in the Allegorical Commentary.⁷⁷ A comprehensive study of these texts and a catalogue of Philo’s exegetical patterns in treating them, however, remains a desideratum. To my knowledge, no one has attempted a comprehensive survey of all the secondary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary.⁷⁸ Focus has instead been placed on their unique literary role within individual treatises, which lends the Allegorical Commentary its sui generis quality. Further research remains to be done both on the interrelation of secondary and primary lemmata and on the classification of Philo’s interpretations of secondary lemmata as quasi-independent acts of exegesis in their own right. It is precisely the concatenation of so many elaborate exegeses of secondary lemmata, giving the Allegorical Commentary its compendious character, that has convinced scholars that Philo is not simply composing a new commentary out of whole cloth but sees it as his unoriginal role to preserve and redact the exegetical traditions which his Alexandrian Jewish predecessors and colleagues handed on to him. Many of these secondary exegeses contain a rhetorical and theological integrity of their own, awareness of which has suggested a possible point of origin in the Hellenistic synagogue homily.⁷⁹ Whether they were composed for the synagogue or private study, however, Philo incorporates and rewrites these exegetical exempla within the new framework of his theological treatises. Philo’s expositions of secondary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary are thus distinctly thematic as well as sequential—a characterization which links them to Paul’s pattern of exegesis in 2 Corinthians 3.  Runia, “Further Observations,” 124: “A number of the secondary biblical texts (not all) are given a role that is hardly less important than that of the main text. It is striking that on the only two occasions that Philo gives a phrase for phrase detailed exegesis of a longer biblical lemma in Gig.-Deus, he does so for a secondary text ….”  See, however, Runia, “Secondary Texts,” which lists all the secondary lemmata in the Quaestiones.  See, Holtz, “Von Alexandrien nach Jerusalem,” 252– 253 citing Sterling, “School of Sacred Laws,” 163; and especially Borgen, Bread from Heaven, passim. The question the origins (synagogue or bêt midrash?) of the homiletic midrashim interwoven in the amoraic anthologies provides a rough analogue. For a summary of the debate, see Anisfeld, Raisin Cakes, 16.

126

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Additionally, 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and Philo’s interpretations of secondary lemmata share an interest in the figure of Moses. All the extant treatises of the Allegorical Commentary take excerpts from Genesis as their primary texts; it is only in the secondary lemmata that we encounter texts from Exodus–Deuteronomy. None of these, regrettably, is Exodus 34, a curious fact to which I will return later on.⁸⁰ If we are looking for Moses traditions that might share something substantive with Paul’s use of Moses in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, however, we are clearly much closer to our subject among Philo’s secondary lemmata than among his primary ones. These substantive similarities will be taken up in chapters five and six. In the present chapter, I limit my focus to the formal similarity between Philo’s exposition of secondary lemmata and Paul’s exegesis. One finds a very compelling parallel in another of Philo’s middle commentaries, Quod Deus sit immutabilis.

3.3.2 Deus 87 – 90 and the Exegetical Pattern of 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 Philo’s exegeses of secondary lemmata do not follow a single pattern; neither do they always reference the biblical text in the same way, nor do they treat biblical lemmata of identical length. One Philonic pattern for interpreting a secondary lemma, presented above (Lev 18:6 in Gig. 32– 47), shows only a partial resemblance to Paul’s pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. There, Philo introduces a single verse, Lev 18:6, as a secondary lemma to expound the meaning of Gen 6:3. Over the course of sixteen sections, Philo breaks the verse down into constituent (sequential) fragments and expounds them one by one, mirroring his pattern with primary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary. A second pattern employed by Philo in interpreting a secondary lemma in Deus 87– 90 comes much closer to Paul’s pattern. Here, Philo implicitly comments on an entire mid-length pericope, Num 6:2– 12, to amplify his interpretation of a primary lemma, Gen 6:8. The pattern can be demonstrated by the following outline (Table 3.3): Table 3.3: Outline of Deus 87 – 90 § § § §

Allusion to Num : (“The great vow”) Textual comment on Num : (“Holy, suffering the hair of his head to grow”) Allusion to Num : (“Death”) Textual comment on Num : (“The former days”; “not reckoned”)

 Philo only treats Exod 34:29 – 35 briefly in Mos. 2.69 – 70.

3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata

127

Four important features distinguish Philo’s exegetical pattern in Deus 87– 90 from the pattern of Gig. 32– 47 and simultaneously draw it closer to Paul’s exegesis in 2 Corinthians. First, in Deus 87, Philo introduces his secondary lemma by alluding to the μεγάλη εὐχή of Num 6:2 (ὁς ἐὰν μεγάλως εὔξηται εὐχήν). Philo gives the reader no clue how far he will follow this biblical text. Only with the reference to Num 6:12 in Deus 90 does the extent of his secondary lemma become clear. Contrast this with Gig. 32, where the secondary lemma is introduced by a full quotation and each part commented upon. Second, in Deus 87– 90, Philo sequentially interprets this secondary lemma in a selective fashion. This practice contrasts sharply with Gig. 32 – 47, but matches 2 Cor 3:7– 18. Third, in stark contrast to the one verse lemma (Lev 18:6) interpreted over the course of sixteen sections in Gig. 32– 47, in Deus 87– 90, Philo treats an eleven verse pericope (Num 6:2– 12) in four sections, totaling around 200 words. Thus, the pattern in Deus 87– 90 mirrors quite closely the pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, where Paul selectively interprets a six or seven verse pericope (Exod 34:29 – 34 [35]) in the course of 17 verses, totaling around 195 words. Their lengths are roughly commensurate. Finally, the overall structure of Deus 87– 90 resembles Paul’s structure in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 in several striking ways. First, both Philo’s and Paul’s exegeses divide almost evenly into two parts. In Paul’s case, 2 Cor 3:7– 11 introduces the theme of Moses’ glorious covenant. 2 Cor 3:13 – 18, then treats the veiling and unveiling of Moses’ face and the concomitant loss and recovery of divine glory by the sons of Israel. Philo’s commentary follows a similar twofold pattern. Deus 87– 88 introduces the theme of the “great vow” from Numbers 6 and offers an allegorical reading of the Nazirite’s hair as the “truths of virtue.” Deus 89 – 90 then treats the immature loss of these hairs and, ultimately, their recovery. As in Paul, so in Philo, the first half of the exegesis sets the stage for a discourse on holiness and perfection in the second. In addition, Deus 87– 90 and 2 Cor 3:7– 18 are both governed by a fourfold engagement with their respective scriptural texts. These scriptural engagements alternate between allusion and textual comment and provide the structure of each exegesis. Their patterns are illustrated in the following table (Table 3.4):

128

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Table 3.4: Exegetical Patterns of 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 and Deus 87 – 90 Paul Allusion Textual Comment Allusion Textual Comment

Philo

Section

Lemma

 Cor :  Cor :  Cor :  Cor :

Exod : –  Exod : –  Exod :[] Exod :

Section Deus Deus Deus Deus

   

Lemma Num : Num : Num : Num :

Here we have, as it were, struck gold in the search for a parallel to Paul’s pattern of exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. The strength of this parallel suggests that Philo’s exegeses of secondary lemmata remain an untapped source for understanding the form and content of Paul’s biblical interpretation in 2 Corinthians 3 and elsewhere in his letters.

3.3.3 Theoretical Excursus: Exegesis, Text, and Story At this point, we need to make a brief caesura in the argument to address a theoretical question that has been looming over this study since its first pages. In what sense is it legitimate to call Paul’s use of Exodus here “exegesis” at all? Does it really “comment” on the text of Exodus in the same way Philo does? Does it resemble, formally or methodologically, later rabbinic “midrash”—however morphologically distinct and methodologically innovative those later tannaitic writings are from their Second Temple forebears? For many scholars, the strongly thematic and rhetorical character of this passage calls its status as exegesis into question. Although I have prescinded from calling 2 Cor 3:7– 18 a “midrash” in this study, to get a little purchase on the exegetical character of Paul’s passage, it may help to review some of the scholarship on the notion of pre-rabbinic midrash. Addison Wright, in his classic study on the subject, argues that while there is such a category as pre-rabbinic midrash, very few passages in the New Testament qualify for that ascription, given the primacy of the apostolic kerygma over the scriptural text in these writings.⁸¹ Similarly, for Steven Fraade, a rabbinic scholar who is hesitant to speak of

 Wright, Midrash, 112– 21; 139 – 42. Wright’s primary concern is to criticize the view that the Matthean and Lucan infancy narratives should be considered midrashim. Wright, ibid., 104, does admit, in dialogue with Peder Borgen, that passages in Philo, Gal 3:6– 29, and Rom 4:1– 25 “are examples of midrash.”

3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata

129

“pre-rabbinic midrash,” it is precisely the role of narrative in the New Testament that renders it distinct from the rabbinic corpus: [The] outer structure [of the New Testament] is not that of commenting on Scripture, but rather in the case of the Gospels, of telling the story of Jesus’ life and death, or, in the case of Acts and the Pauline Letters, of relating how his teachings were spread and the Church established after his death. This is not to minimize the role of scriptural interpretation in these writings but rather to stress that fragmented biblical interpretation and imagery is here incorporated into the structure of a story, rather than fragmented stories incorporated into the structure of a scriptural commentary, as is often the case in rabbinic commentary.⁸²

Fraade’s perspicuous analysis helpfully distinguishes the different generating stimuli behind early rabbinic-Jewish and Christian(-Jewish) thought and literature. Because of the historicity of the Christian kerygma and its realized messianism, Christian Jews (and Gentiles) preferred to tell stories, whereas rabbinic Jews, at least in the midrashic literature, structured their discourse around the biblical text.⁸³ But Fraade is also (as he himself admits) painting in broad strokes. On the one hand, the Gospels and Acts, due to their genre, necessarily revolve around a story in a way that distinguishes them from textually structured rabbinic midrash. But can the same equally be said of Paul’s letters? Certainly the concept of “story,” as a theoretical model, has been invoked in recent decades as a lens for viewing Paul’s theology.⁸⁴ This has been helpful to a certain degree in unifying Paul’s theology. To my mind, however, there seems a certain sleight of hand if one implies that Paul’s letters primarily aim to tell the story of “the spread of Jesus’ teachings” in the same way as the Acts of the Apostles. While Paul at times may tell stories, either of his own journeys or the struggles and successes of various churches, his letters in the end remain not stories but letters. Their aim is multifaceted, and as interpersonal ecclesial correspondences, they

 Fraade, Tradition to Commentary, 3.  The Mishnah and Tosefta are different in this regard. Their anthological character and dependence upon oral rather than written law, as well as on the lives of historical rabbis, bring them much closer to the sermons of the Gospels. Similarly, a characterization of the Gospels primarily as narrative runs the risk of minimizing the anthological and halakhic aspect of early Jesus traditions. For a study of the halakhic elements of the Gospels, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume IV: Law and Love (AYBR; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).  See, e. g., Nicholas T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 47– 80, esp. 79, for whom story is not only critical for understanding Paul’s literary genre, but is also a fundamental epistemological anchor in Wright’s critical realism.

130

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

have a variety of rhetorical, paideutic, and pastoral ends, including juridical apologia, exemplaric exegesis, and paraenesis, as well as proclamation of the apostolic kerygma. This means that the place of biblical exegesis and its relation to story in Paul’s letters cannot simply be lumped together with treatments of exegesis in the Gospels and Acts, but needs to be considered afresh in light of the unique literary dynamics of Greco-Roman and Jewish letters. Philo’s commentaries present us with an analogous, if slightly different challenge.⁸⁵ If one views his writings as a whole, including apologetic and philosophical works like the De vita contemplativa, In Flaccum, Hypothetica, and the dialogue with his apostate nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander entitled De providentia, Philo’s corpus, like the New Testament, seems predicated upon the existence of a story with contemporaneous horizons—the story of the Jewish community in Alexandria, its struggle to define itself in relation to other Jewish communities in the Diaspora and the Land, and the potentially universal significance of Judaism for the Greco-Roman world. Admittedly, the historical contours of Philo’s story remain largely hidden beneath the surface in his exegetical writings, and attempts to correlate the development of Philo’s exegetical patterns and theology in the Allegorical Commentary with his political career are unconvincing.⁸⁶ However, by the end of his life, a perceived need to synthesize his spiritual and political ideas and to present them in an accessible way may have inspired Philo to compose his most exoteric and apologetic commentary, the Exposition of the Law. Whereas Philo’s apologetic and philosophical works tell the story of Alexandrian Judaism, his exegetical works, above all the Allegorical Commentary, expound the heart of his theological vision. If one considers, simply for the sake of argument, Philo’s corpus and the New Testament as parallel literary canons of apologetic Judaism, it does not seem unfair to suggest a certain crude analogy between Philo’s apologetic writings and the Gospels/Acts on the one hand, and Philo’s exegetical writings and the New Testament epistles on the other. That Philo wrote allegorical treatises and Paul wrote letters is, of course, significant. Philo, as an educated elite member of Roman society, chose to teach and strengthen the Jewish communities of the Diaspora by way of a unique avenue available to him because of his education: the philosophical school. This ap-

 It is worth mentioning that, for Fraade, Tradition to Commentary, Philo is the most direct morphological (not genealogical) analogue to the later rabbinic midrashim—a view which is increasingly being echoed by other scholars of early Judaism.  For the attempt to classify the works of the Allegorical Commentary into three groups, based on the vicissitudes of Philo’s political career, see Louis Massebieau and Emile Bréhier, “Essai sur la chronologie de la vie et des oevres de Philon,” RHR 53 (1906): 25 – 64, 164– 85, 267– 89.

3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata

131

proach would be adopted in the Christian world by Justin Martyr and Origen in later centuries. Philo’s treatises in the Allegorical Commentary, however, are not mere compendia, nor simply philosophical ὑπομνήματα. Rather, Philo appears to have written exegetical treatises resembling συγγράμματα, organized around a theological theme, each of which constitutes a part of the second narrative at the heart of Philo’s works: the story of the ethical progress of the soul toward its intended perfection before God, as told allegorically by Moses in the lives of the Pentateuchal patriarchs.⁸⁷ Crucial for this study of Pauline exegesis are the different ways in which Philo treats his primary and secondary biblical texts within the context of a theme-based, narrative-driven allegory. In both cases, Philo interprets the text sequentially and is thus beholden to it. In the case of primary lemmata, Philo’s commitment to the biblical text is to the inspired text qua text. He starts from the text and allows its sequence and particularities to set the terms of his discussion. In the case of secondary texts, several things are different. Philo chooses a pericope or a series of pericopae on the basis of a (primary-textually) pre-determined theme. The pericope can be delimited on the basis of its relevance to the primary theme and selectively treated. Secondary exegeses, however, are not merely collected stories subjected to a commentary, but biblical interpretation in their own right, sometimes with an independent prehistory. Thus, in the Allegorical Commentary, particularly in Philo’s exposition of secondary lemmata, we find (to modify Fraade’s formulation) fragmented biblical interpretations incorporated into the structure of a biblical commentary. An adequate description of the varieties of sequential exegesis in early Jewish texts needs to include both primary and secondary varieties. Primary-level exegesis would include Philo’s interpretation of primary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary, the sequential pesharim, and the primary scriptural texts of Sifre Deuteronomy. In this species of sequential exegesis, the text is allowed set the theological agenda. Primary-level exegesis is thus the procedure of scriptural commentary proper. Secondary-level exegesis describes the pattern of sequential commentary that has in view not only the authoritative text but also a predetermined external

 Pace N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 39, n. 21 who argues that the absence of story in Philo may be “the exception that proves the rule,” although Wright goes on to admit that Philo “too used stories at certain stages, as did Plato himself.” Philo states the connection between the Patriarchal lives and the soul’s perfection before God most clearly in the Exposition of the Law; but this ethical narrative also provides the substructure for Philo’s interpretation of Pentateuchal figures like Abraham and Moses in the Allegorical Commentary.

132

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

theme, message, or story. Under this rubric fall Philo’s interpretation of secondary lemmata, the thematic pesharim, and the redaction of commentary traditions in Essene treatises (CD, 1QS), Gospels, and Greco-Roman letters. In these instances, the scriptural text is not the exegete’s sole structural commitment. Scripture’s structuring function, however, is not totally eclipsed, but remains normative for reshaping the message or theme. The difference between primary-level and secondary-level exegesis may thus be illustrated by the following two figures:

Figure : Primary-level Exegesis

Figure : Secondary-level Exegesis

The essential difference between these two kinds of exegesis is the number of foci in the interpretive foreground. Primary-level exegesis focuses on the circle’s textual point of origin and has as its formal genre explication of a text. In secondary-level exegesis, by contrast, the interpreter has two foci, both text and story. In both cases, however, a sustained, sequential exegesis of an authoritative text is the sine qua non for determining which texts actually function as commentary in a meaningful sense. Obviously, the above model is crude and deserves some caveat. As the subsequent analysis of the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary will show, primarylevel exegesis, at least in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, usually still involves attention to a theme or story. Even the tersest ὑπόμνημα may be composed in an agonistic context. There are, however, some ancient genres which do closely approximate this form, the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, and the rabbinic midrashim being prime examples.

3.3 Philo’s Interpretation of Secondary Biblical Lemmata

133

The foregoing model, moreover, usefully distinguishes between two patterns of biblical interpretation found in early Jewish and Christian exegesis, both of which are part of Philo’s standard exegetical praxis in the Allegorical Commentary. My thesis, stated now in light of this theoretical excursus, is that Philo’s secondary-level expositions, with their rhetorical focus and digressive aesthetic, mirror the form and function of Paul’s secondary-level exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. To be clear, I am not suggesting that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 interprets a secondary lemma in the proper sense. It is true that 2 Cor 3:1– 6 alludes to prophetic texts from Ezekiel and Jeremiah, making Paul’s turn to Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7 a kind of amplification of a scriptural argument. Any attempt to posit a generic or genetic connection between this move and Philo’s secondary exegeses in the Allegorical Commentary must remain tentative, as Philo’s concatenation of secondary exegeses is largely a sui generis feature of the Allegorical Commentary and we have no evidence that Paul had any first-hand knowledge of Philo’s writings.⁸⁸ The rhetorical effect of Paul’s shift of scriptural focus, however, is not unlike the role played by expositions of secondary lemmata in the commentaries mentioned above. One need not claim that 2 Cor 3:7– 18 interprets a secondary lemma per se to appreciate its similarity with other instances of secondarylevel exegesis. Before turning to a rhetorical and theological comparison of secondary-level exegesis in Philo and Paul, there is need to fully plumb a representative sampling of other related Hellenistic commentaries. Not only will this help contextualize Philo’s works and identify other helpful parallels with which to illuminate Paul’s interpretation of Exodus in 2 Corinthians. It will also provide foundational evidence for understanding the phenomenon of secondary-level exegesis across a wide spectrum of literary genres. It is the task of the rest of this chapter to consider the exegetical patterns in two other commentary corpora—Middle-Platonic commentaries and the scriptural commentaries discovered at Qumran—in order to set the stage for a similar exegetical study of homilies and non-commentary genres in chapter four.

 For a recent reconsideration of this view, see Holtz, “Von Alexandrien nach Jerusalem,” 231– 232.

134

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary 3.4.1 Introduction Among the pertinent parallels to Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary (hereafter K) claims a certain pride of place.⁸⁹ Although Harold Tarrant’s attribution of this fragmentary Middle-Platonic commentary to Eudorus of Alexandria has garnered little support,⁹⁰ his re-dating of the text from the mid-second century C.E. to the mid-first century B.C.E. has been followed by an impressive group of scholars and many weighty factors remain in favor of this early dating.⁹¹ Even the recent wave of scholars who contest Tarrant’s dating of K have not simply reasserted Schubart’s original position (150 C.E.), but opt for an earlier date around 100 C.E.,⁹² admitting that “the author was probably able to draw upon a rich exegetical tradition.”⁹³ The current debate thus places K sometime between 50 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. This remarkable (if not always profound) early witness to the Platonist commentary tradition thus

 The first edition of the text was published by Hermann Diels and Wilhelm Schubart, Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) nebst drei Bruchstücken philosophischen Inhalts (Pap. N. 8; P. 9766.9569) (Berliner Klassikertexte; Berlin: Weidmann, 2004 [1905]). A completely new edition with Italian introduction, translation and commentary was published by Guido Bastianini and David Sedley, Commentarium in Platonis “Theaetetum,” in Corpus dei papyri filosofici greci e latini (4 parts; Firenze: Olschki, 1995), 3.227– 562.  Harold Tarrant, “The Date of the Anonymous In Theaetetum,” CQ 33 (1983): 161– 87; idem, Scepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy (Cambridge Classical Studies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 66 – 88; Bastianini and Sedley, Commentarium, 254– 256.  These include Anthony Long and David Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1.471; 2.461; Miles Burnyeat, The Theaetetus of Plato (trans. M. J. Levett; Indianapolis: Hackett, 1990), 235 n.126; Carlos Lévy, “Cicéron et le moyen Platonisme: le problème du souverain bien selon Platon,” REL 68 (1990): 50 – 65, esp. 62 note 66; and Giesela Striker, “Following Nature: A Study of Stoic Ethics,” OSAPh 9 (1991): 1– 73, esp. 44 note 27. For a complete list, see Bastianini and Sedley, Commentarium, 255; and Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 427.  So Charles Brittain, Philo of Larissa: The Last of the Academic Sceptics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 249 – 254, esp. 252; Jan Opsomer, In Search of the Truth: Academic Tendencies in Middle Platonism (Wetteren: Universa, 1998), 34– 36; Mauro Bonazzi, “The Commentary as Polemical Tool: The Anonymous Commentator on the Theaetetus against the Stoics,” LThPh 63/3 (2008): 597– 605, esp. 598, note 1; and idem, Un dibattito tra academici e platonici sull’eredità di Platone: La testimonianza del commentario anonimo al Teeteto,” in Corpus dei papiri filosofici, 4.1.41– 74.  So Opsomer, Search, 36, following Bastianini and Sedley, Commentarium, 259.

3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary

135

stands squarely within the timeframe of the Pauline and Philonic texts studied thus far. As “the first extant Platonist commentary,”⁹⁴ it provides critical evidence for contextualizing Philo’s commentaries within their broader GrecoRoman literary matrix. Some of the superficial and more substantive similarities between K and Philo’s Allegorical Commentary have already been noted by David Runia.⁹⁵ Over the course of 76 columns, the anonymous commentator of K treats Theaet. 142a – 153e by breaking the text down into primary lemmata and commenting on each lemma sequentially. An additional four fragments preserve commentary on Theaet. 157e – 158a. These primary lemmata range from one or two words (K 12.21) to more substantive pericopae, but none approaches the length of the texts treated in Philo’s longer secondary lemmata or in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. In interpreting primary lemmata, the commentator likewise introduces secondary lemmata by way of citations and allusions to other Platonic dialogues or references to “remote verses” from the Theaetetus. He draws especially from the Meno. In this aspect, K evinces its particularly “Platonist” character, interpreting Plato by Plato, as Aristarchus interprets Homer by Homer and as Philo interprets Moses by Moses. As such, K proceeds along quite similar zetematic lines as the Allegorical Commentary.⁹⁶ These secondary lemmata provide interesting and fruitful comparanda in the present inquiry as examples of secondary-level exegesis. Despite the somewhat frequent citations of and allusions to secondary Platonic lemmata in K, however, the exegesis of these texts appears underdeveloped in comparison to Philo. As Runia notes in his study: Although the commentator practices the Middle Platonist hermeneutic principle of explaining Plato via Plato and so is eager to adduce other texts, whether in order to resolve a possible conflict (57.15) or as a proof (57.26), these secondary texts never lead to separate developments as in Philo. There is a more direct concentration on the subject at hand.⁹⁷

Runia is correct in his overall impression of K’s use of secondary lemmata, when viewed in comparison to Philo. However, his description of them as introduced solely to resolve “conflict” or provide “proof” may be a touch reductive, based as it is on one passage in K (56.11– 57.42). This is especially true in the case of secondary references to the Meno, as Tarrant writes:

   

Bonazzi, “Polemical Tool,” 597. Runia, “Further Observations,” 114– 115. For the role of ‘zetesis’ in this commentary, see Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism?, 69 – 71. Runia, “Further Reflections,” 115.

136

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

[The commentator’s] epistemology is very much based upon Plato’s Meno, and the Theaetetus is interpreted with an eye to the Meno. The earlier work is perhaps seen as supplying the dogmata which lie beneath the surface of the Theaetetus’ non-dogmatic ‘inquiry’ … . One might well ask why [the commentator] comments on the Theaetetus rather than on the Meno, if the latter work contained Plato’s basic epistemology; I suspect that the answer is that the Theaetetus was a controversial work at the time (see col. 2), and that [the commentator] felt that it was in need of reinterpretation.⁹⁸

Of course, one need not adopt Tarrant’s position on the relation of K to the Fourth Academy in order to grant that the concerns of the Meno stand in the background of much of K’s discussion. His basic point remains valid. Additionally, Runia does not explicitly address the various lengths of the secondary lemmata in K nor does he ask to what degree they play a structuring role in the commentator’s argument. Runia was necessarily selective in his treatment of K, choosing to focus on two passages, K 34.9 – 35.44 and K 56.11– 57.42. Only the second section involves a secondary lemma drawn from the Meno 87b7– c1. On the basis of these considerations, further study of this fascinating text is warranted. In what follows, I will return briefly to the anonymous commentator’s use of Meno 87b7– c1 in K 56.11– 31 and then investigate the role of another secondary lemma, Meno 98a3 – 4, which occurs twice, once in the course of the commentary proper (K 15.18 – 23) and once in the introductory discussion of the skopos of the dialogue (K 2.52– 3.25). In this latter instance, I will argue that a longer lemma of the Meno is implicitly interpreted (although never cited) and provides the structural key to the commentator’s argument.

3.4.2 Meno 87b7 – c1 as a Secondary Lemma In the section of K studied by Runia (56.11– 31 [Theaet. 150d7– 8]), the Meno features as a secondary lemma in a relatively restricted way.⁹⁹ After citing the primary lemma from the Theaetetus, “But they themselves are finding and giving birth to many beautiful things from within themselves” (Theaet. 150d7– 8), the commentator poses the following question (which I paraphrase): how can Plato still hold a doctrine of psychic recollection (πῶς ἔτι ἀναμιμνῄσκονται αἱ ψυχαί) if in fact he says here in the Theaetetus that souls “find” (εὑρίσκουσιν) knowledge, that is, if they learn things empirically (μανθάνουσιν)?

 Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism?, 82– 83.  For a complete translation of the passage, see Runia, “Further Comments,” 132.

3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary

137

The commentator ventures two answers to these questions: (1) On the one hand, “finding” need not simply mean discovering new information; it is also used in the case when people have lost or forgotten something and then retrieve it later;¹⁰⁰ (2) Second, Plato does not always use the term “recollection” (ἀνάμνησις) even in some instances when he is speaking about the dogma. “And he clarified this in the Meno, saying ‘There is no difference if we say that something it is taught or recollected’ (Meno 87b7– c1)” (K 56.26 – 31). As Runia notes, the commentator does not quote the Meno verbatim, but paraphrases two sentences. While it is true that Meno 87b7– c1 is introduced as a prooftext for the commentator’s second answer to the problem, this is far from exhausting the role that the Meno plays in this comment or exegetical “chapter.” In fact, there is good reason to suggest that the “problem” which the commentator discovers in the verbs “find” and “give birth” in Theaet. 150d7– 8 (K 56.14– 17) arises from an implicit comparison of the primary lemma with the discussion of teaching and recollection found in Meno 81c5– 82a, where μάθησις is identified as the inaccurate common name for the process which is truly ἀνάμνησις (e. g. Meno 81d2– 3, e4– 5). To corroborate this hypothesis, I offer the following data. First, the doctrine of “recollection” does not occur as an explicit theme in the Theaetetus. The noun ἀνάμνησις occurs only once at Theaet. 209c8. Moreover, of the four instances of the verb ἀναμιμνῄσκειν in the dialogue, two occur in the prooimion between Eucleides and Terpsion and the other two occur after the primary lemma in question (Theaet. 166e2, 190b2). While later Platonists could read significance into the presence of the two verbs in the prooimion and agonized about its role in the dialogue, the anonymous commentator seems mostly unaware of these debates.¹⁰¹ In the Meno, by contrast, recollection is a major theme and three out of four total occurrences of the noun ἀνάμνησις occur in Meno 81c5 – 82a2 (Meno 81d5, 81e4, 82a2). The verb ἀναμιμνῄσκειν also appears in this pericope twice (Meno 81c8, 81d2).¹⁰² Moreover, a subsequent lemma from the Meno is explicitly quoted at the end of this chapter in K. It seems clear that the commentator has discov-

 For a more detailed exposition of this solution, see Philo, Deus 86 – 93.  See Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism?, 68: “It also seems likely that [the anonymous commentator] was unaware of the Middle Platonic debate concerning the interpretation of the prologue, for he takes an attitude which falls between two known positions without giving any hint that the subject was a controversial one.” See ibid. 158 – 59, note 8, for the various Middle Platonic stances, as well as Iamblichus’s later position that Plato’s prologues required “deep interpretation.”  The fourth occurrence of ἀνάμνησις is at Meno 98a4, which is an explicit reference back to Meno 81c5 – 82a2 (ὡς ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἡμῖν ὡμολόγηται).

138

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

ered a Platonic problem with Theaet. 150d7– 8 by comparing it with another text, most likely Meno 81c5 – 82a2. In this instance, however, I am claiming that the Meno has exerted a thematic and linguistic influence on the comments in K 56.14– 26. Meno 81c5 – 82a supplies the interpretative problem for the primary lemma from the Theaetetus, which the commentator then introduces Meno 87b7–c1 to resolve. It is perhaps suggestive that both K 56.14 and Meno 81c5 begin with a references to the soul as the subject of recollection (although the plural souls in K 56.14 are probably derived from Theaet. 150b10 rather than the singular in Meno 81c5). But Meno 81c5 – 82a2 does not control the exegesis of K at the structural level. It nonetheless serves as an essential subtext in the discussion, providing key themes and vocabulary without being explicitly cited.

3.4.3 Meno 98a3 – 4 as a Secondary Lemma Another important set of secondary references to the Meno (98a3 – 4) come in the anonymous commentator’s discussion of the kinds of knowledge discussed in the Theaet. 145c7– 8. This question surfaces both within the commentary proper (K 14.42– 15.23) and in the commentator’s introductory remarks on the Theaetetus’s two prooimia (K 2.52– 3.25), where he discusses the skopos of the dialogue. Because I am primarily interested in how the Meno functions as a secondary lemma within the running commentary, I will begin with the reference to Meno 98a3 – 4 in K 15.19 – 23 and then move to the commentator’s introduction. I offer first an English translation of the interpretative chapter, beginning with the primary lemma: I suppose you are learning from Theodorus some things about geometry (γεωμετρίας ἄττα)? (Theaet. 145c8 – 9). He did not say, “You are learning geometry from Theodorus,” but “some things about geometry (τινα τῆς γεωμετρίας). For his speech is not about complex knowledge (σύνθετος ἐπιστήμη), which some people term “systematic,” but about simple knowledge (ἁπλῆ ἐπιστήμη), which can be characterized as a particular understanding (ἡ κατὰ ἕκαστον θεώρημα γνῶσις) of the elements of geometry and music. But from these simple particulars, a single kind of synthetic knowledge results (ἀποτελεῖται). Now then, simple knowledge is prior to complex knowledge, as [Plato] himself also defined it in the Meno [as] “right opinion bound by the cause of reason (δόξαν [ὀρ]θὴν δεθ[εῖσ]αν αἰτίᾳ λογισμ[οῦ]).¹⁰³ Aristotle, on the other hand, [defined it] as “supposition with proof”

 The first edition of Diels and Schubart includes the letters [[ΔΕΟΡΘΟΝ]] just prior to δεθεῖσαν, which Bastianini and Sedley omit from their printed text and insert in the apparatus. It

3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary

139

(ὑπ]όληψιν μετὰ [ἀπ]οδείξεω[ς]); and Zeno, for his part, [defined it] as “a state which accepts the impressions, unaltered by reason” (ἕξι[ν ἐν π]ροσδέξ[ε]ι φ[αντασι]ῶ[ν] ἀμε[τάπτωτ]ον ὑ[π]ὸ λόγο[υ] … ).

In many respects, this introduction of a text from the Meno as a secondary lemma in K 15.18 – 23 bears striking resemblance to the secondary use of the Meno 87b7–c1 in K 56.26 – 31. Both secondary lemmata are introduced by a reference to the dialogue from which they come (a common practice of the anonymous commentator) and both times, the commentator cites the Meno not in a verbatim fashion, but by way of a paraphrase. In the current pericope, the commentator defines simple knowledge in the terms of the Meno as “right opinion bound by the cause of reason (δόξαν [ὀρ]θὴν δεθ[εῖσ]αν αἰτίᾳ λογισμ[οῦ]). The commentator has condensed the longer description of right reason from Meno 97d1– 98a12. There, Socrates and Meno are puzzling out the difference between right opinion and knowledge. To explain the difference, Socrates invokes the myth of the statues of Daedalus, in which the famed-inventor’s creations could move on their own. He likens right opinion to these runaway statues, which are of no use unless they are bound (δεδέμενα, Meno 97d10). In expounding Plato’s doctrine, the commentator relies heavily on the language of Meno 97e6 – 98a8, where Socrates discusses the relation of right opinion and knowledge: καὶ γὰρ αἱ δόξαι αἱ ἀληθεῖς, ὅσον μὲν ἂν χρόνον παραμένωσιν, καλὸν τὸ χρῆμα καὶ πάντ’ ἀγαθὰ εργάζονται· πολὺν δὲ χρόνον οὐκ ἐθέλουσι παραμένειν, ἀλλὰ δραπετεύουσιν ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὥστε οὐ πολλοῦ ἄξιαί εἰσιν, ἕως ἄν τις αὐτὰς δήσῃ αἰτίας λογισμῷ (see K 15.18 – 23, K 2.52– 3.3). Τοῦτο δ’ ἐστίν, ὦ Μένων ἑταῖρε, ἀνάμνησις, ὡς ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἡμῖν ὡμολόγηται. ἐπειδὰν δὲ δεθῶσιν, πρῶτον μὲν ἐπιστῆμαι γίγνονται, ἔπειτα μόνομοι· καὶ διὰ ταῦτα δὴ τιμιώτερον ἐπιστήμη ὀρθῆς δόξης ἐστίν, καὶ διαφέρει δεσμῷ ἐπιστήμη ὀρθῆς δόξης (see K 3.22– 25). For true opinions, so long as they persist, are also a good possession and bring about all benefits; but they do not like to stay for very long, but flee the human soul. As a result, they’re not worth that much, until someone binds them with causal reasoning. This, my dear friend Meno, is “recollection,” as we agreed before. And whenever [true opinions] are bound, they become first knowledge, and then fixed knowledge. So for these reasons, knowledge is distinct from right opinion because of the “bond.”

seems to be a scribal corruption involving a dittography after ὀρθήν, although admittedly this does not account for the form entirely.

140

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Several things should be noted about the commentator’s paraphrastic reworking of this passage in K 15.18 – 23. While the verb δέω and its participles occur some 5 times (Meno 97d9, 10, 97e4, 98a3, 5) in the course of the pericope, never once does the feminine singular participle appear. Hence, “bound right opinion” is the commentator’s shorthand for a concept that is expounded over the course several paragraphs in the Meno. The part of the commentator’s paraphrase in K 15.19 – 23 that most strongly echoes Meno 98a is the phrase αἰτίᾳ λογισμ[οῦ], “by cause of reasoning.” This appears at first blush to be a misquotation of Meno 98a3 – 4, αἰτίας λογισμῷ, “by causal reasoning.”¹⁰⁴ Arguing against the theory of misquotation, however, is the fact that the identical formulation is faithfully reproduced in K 3.2– 3.¹⁰⁵ As such, Harold Tarrant and Charles Brittain are probably correct that commentator’s text of the Theaetetus read αἰτίᾳ λογισμοῦ.¹⁰⁶ Whatever the case, Meno 98a3 – 4 is clearly the locus paraphrased in this secondary lemma. The two uses of secondary lemmata from the Meno that we have encountered thus far share certain common features. Both allude to the specific Platonic dialogue and paraphrase the text they comment upon. There are also recognizable differences which should be noted. Whereas Meno 87b7 te – c1 is introduced in K 56:11– 31 at the very end of a chapter as a kind of summary prooftext, in K 15.19 – 23, Meno 98a3 – 4 itself introduces a string of citations by the founders of two other major philosophical schools. This is not a simple instance of prooftexting, but the assemblage of secondary catalogue of texts which provide raw material for a new Platonizing epistemology, born from the recombination of elements drawn from conflicting Hellenistic schools. Having sufficiently concluded the discussion of the differences between simple and complex knowledge in K 14.45 – 15.16a, the commentator turns in K 15.16b – 33 to a related but tangential subject, offering the positions of three different authorities, perhaps in an attempt to appropriate aspects of Peripatetic and Stoic definitions for Platonism, while also contesting these positions.¹⁰⁷ This string of secondary texts is offset by the particle τοίνυν, which may “continue the argument” or introduce “a fresh item or point.”¹⁰⁸

 So Diels-Schubart, Anonymer Kommentar, 4, apparatus to 3.2: “Man erwartet … αἰτιας λογισμῷ.”  Diels-Schubart, Anonymer Kommentar, XXXIII.  Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism?, 68. See also Brittain, Philo of Larissa, 252.  For a discussion of the polemic Platonist agenda of the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, see Bonazzi, “Polemical Tool.”  LSJ 3b–c. For the “Transitional” use of τοίνυν, see Denniston, The Greek Particles, II.1 “marking a fresh step in the march of thought”; II.2 “Introducing a fresh item in a series: a

3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary

141

Unfortunately, much of this second section is either fragmentary or lost. Enough remains to confidently recover the names Aristotle and Zeno, and Bastianini and Sedley’s reconstruction of Zeno’s definition is quite intriguing, if admittedly speculative.¹⁰⁹ This evidence suggests that Runia’s conclusion that secondary lemmata in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary “never lead to separate developments as in Philo” needs to be slightly rephrased. It would be better to say that while secondary lemmata in K may (at least in this instance) introduce tangential discussions in the manner of Philo’s secondary lemmata, these exegetical tangents are primarily there in nuce and nowhere near as rhetorically developed as Philo’s more florid exegetical embellishments. This new assessment, nonetheless, strengthens the literary link between Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and the Hellenistic commentary tradition. Several more affinities between K and Philo’s Allegorical Commentary will buttress this position. To demonstrate these, I turn to the commentator’s use of Meno 98a3 – 4 in his introductory discussion of the skopos of the Theaetetus in K 2.52– 3.25.

3.4.4 The Meno and the Theaetetus in Dialogue While Meno 98a3 – 4 plays an important role in introducing a tangential discourse in K 15.18 – 23, the text cited by the anonymous commentator does not demonstrably shape the larger argument, nor was there any sense in which the commentator was working lemma by lemma through the secondary text. This should not lead to the conclusion that he never did so, nor that Philo’s sequential interpretation of secondary lemmata was purely his own invention. Rather, the anonymous commentator’s use of Meno 98a3 – 4, or better, Meno 98a3 – 8, in his introduction (K 2.[39]52– 3.25) demonstrates that Philo’s secondary-level exegesis has an important formal precursor in the Middle-Platonist commentary tradition. Before presenting the relevant passage to demonstrate this, I offer a brief description of the introduction to the commentary, beginning from the first legible lines of the manuscript. After apparently rehearsing the dramatic setting of the

new example or a new argument”; II.2.ii “‘opening a new paragraph”; II.3 “Marking the transition from the enunciation of a general proposition to the consideration of a particular instance of it.” II.5 “Marks a fresh beginning after a strong stop.”  The success of Bastianini and Sedley’s conjecture here depends on whether their rereading of letters in the MS proves paleographically convincing. In many instances they have read more or differently than Diels and Schubart. Investigating this data goes far beyond the scope of this current project.

142

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

dialogue (K 2.1– 11), the commentator notes that some Platonists (Πλατωνικοί) have (wrongly) considered the skopos of the Theaetetus to be the “criterion” of knowledge (K 2.13; Theaet. 178b6, c1) rather than knowledge itself. The commentator corrects this position of his confrères: the dialogue is in fact about simple and complex knowledge (K 2.19 – 21, anticipating here his comments in K 14.42– 15.29). Others argue more correctly that Plato does intend to speak about knowledge here, but that in the Theaetetus he discusses what cannot be demonstrated (περὶ ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν δεικνύναι) and in the companion dialogue, the Sophist, he discusses the things which can be demonstrated (περὶ ἃ ἔστιν ): The people who thought this, therefore, came near to hitting the mark, but they did not reach the truth. For the dialogue [i. e. the Theaetetus] is not about (ζητεῖ) the matter (ὕλη) with which knowledge is concerned, but asks what is the essence (οὐσία) of knowledge itself. These two aims are not identical, since, with regard to skills (τέχναι), the one question wants to know the essence (οὐσία) of each skill, while the other is after the matter (ὕλη) on which the skill is practiced. But since knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) was right belief bound by cause of reasoning (δόξα ὀρθὴ δεθεῖσα αἰτίᾳ λογισμοῦ; cf. Meno 98a3 – 4)—for then we really know things, when we know not only “what” (ὅτι) they are but also why (διὰ τί) they are—and [since] those who have honored the sense perceptions highly on account of their ability to receive impressions (διὰ τὸ ἐχεὶν αὐτάς τι πληκτικόν) were ascribing to them also a degree of precision (ἀκρίβεια), [as a first step in the cognitive process] one will test this [sensory-based] supposition [ὑπολήμψιν], then he will progress to right opinion, then to right opinion with reason (μετὰ λόγου), and at this point he will cease his inquiry (ζήτησις). For if it receives the “fetter” of the cause (τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς αἰτίας; cf. Meno 98a8), his [mental] discourse (λόγος) ¹¹⁰ about this kind of knowledge becomes (γίνεται; cf. Meno 98a6; 2.28 – 32) perfect. (K 2.[39]52– 3.25)

This interpretation of Meno 98a3 – 8 in K 2.52 – 3.25, while quite similar to the discussion of the same text (Meno 98a3 – 4) as a secondary lemma in K 15.18 – 23, also goes beyond it. In K 15.18 – 23, the commentator ventures some preliminary comments on the relationship between simple and complex knowledge, drawing Aristotle and Zeno into the discussion (K 15.18 – 30). This theory is presented briefly and its full contents are lost. In K 2.52– 3.25, by contrast, the comment is framed by a foregoing discussion, where the commentator gives an expanded account of the epistemology of the dialogue, again with assists from Aristotle (ὑπόλημψις) and the Stoic tradition (i. e. “cognitive impression”). More importantly for this study, in the above pericope, the commentator also lengthens the implicit lemma from the Meno that he paraphrases and interprets. In K 2.52– 3.3, we find the identical, compressed paraphrase of Meno 98a3 – 4

 My translation of λόγος reflects the judgment of Bastianini and Sedley, who render the phrase “discorso intorno.”

3.4 Platonic Exegesis in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary

143

that we encountered in K 15.18 – 23. Two features of the paraphrase in the commentary’s introduction set it apart from the one in K 15.18 – 23. First, the commentator uses no citation formula, gliding seamlessly into his discussion of the Meno 98a3 – 4 without referencing the name of the dialogue. He presumes that anyone reading the commentary will catch the allusions in K 2.52– 3.3 and readily “recollect” the Meno and the issues it raises. Second, the commentator’s exegesis here includes a second reference to the Meno (98a8) at the end of his discussion of the skopos of the dialogue (K 3.22– 25). Like the reference to Meno 98a3 – 4 in K 2.52– 3.3, so in K 3.22– 25, τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς αἰτίας, “the fetter of the cause,” paraphrases the epistemological verdict of Meno 98a8: Καὶ διὰ ταῦτα δὴ τιμιώτερον ἐπιστήμη ὀρθῆς δόξης ἐστίν, καὶ διαφέρει δεσμῷ ἐπιστήμη ὀρθῆς δόξης. So, in these respects knowledge is more revered than right opinion, and knowledge differs from right opinion in virtue of its fetter.

The commentator’s phrase “fetter of the cause” in K 3.22– 25 offers an interpretation of the reference to the “fetter” in Meno 98a8, reading it in light of Meno 98a3 – 4. The introduction of the term δεσμός at the end of this section reveals not only that the commentator is reading these two lines of the Meno in light of one another, but also that he is reading and interpreting the entire pericope sequentially. These two paraphrastic references to the Meno, bookending K 2.52– 3.25, demonstrate that Meno 98a3 – 8 provides implicit structure to the argument, as the commentator works selectively and sequentially through the text. One final confirmation that the anonymous commentator has shifted his focus from Meno 98a3 – 4 to Meno 98a5 – 8 at the end of this subsection comes from the strange statement that “the [mental] discourse about this kind of knowledge becomes complete.” In particular, the phrase γίνεται αὐτῷ τέλειος (Κ 3.23 – 24) echoes and loosely paraphrases Meno 98a5 – 6: ἐπειδὰν δὲ δεθῶσιν, πρώτον μὲν ἐπιστῆμαι γίγνονται, ἔπειτα μόνιμοι And when they have been bound, first they become “knowledges,” then [they become] stable.

The subject of this phrase in the Meno are the “true opinions” (τὰς δόξας τὰς ἀληθεῖς, Meno 97e6). As such, Socrates here describes the process by which true (or right) opinions become first “knowledge” and then “fixed knowledge.” A similar threefold stepwise ascent along the ladder of epistemological certainty occurs in precisely this section of the commentary (in K 3.13 – 19) from “sup-

144

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

position” to “right opinion” to “right opinion with reason.” The transformation by which knowledge “becomes stable” (γίγνονται … μόνιμοι) is paralleled by the anonymous commentator in his notion that the mental discourse “becomes complete” (γίνεται … τέλειος) in the acquisition of complex knowledge.¹¹¹ The temporal adverb ἔπειτα of Meno 98a5 – 6, which assists the transition from supposition to right opinion, may even be faintly echoed by the anonymous commentator in the εἶτα of K 3.15. Both dialogue and commentary construct parallel rungs in their ladders of epistemological ascent. If I have accurately assessed the structural role of Meno 98a3 – 8 in K 2.52– 3.25, this subsection represents a previously unrecognized piece of evidence contributing to our understanding of secondary-level exegesis. Like many of Philo’s explications of secondary lemmata, the anonymous commentator of the Theaetetus executes a sequential exegesis of an uncited work which is not the primary text under scrutiny in his treatise. Of course, Meno 98a3 – 8 is not formally a secondary lemma in K 2.52– 3.25. It does not amplify a primary text, but occurs as a part of a thematic introduction to the dialogue as a whole. This heightens the interest of this passage for our study of secondary-level exegesis. The sequential exposition of the same secondary lemma at two discrete points within K shows how a single author might employ the same interpretive traditions in different literary contexts. The extended length of the secondary text in K 2.52– 3.25 is especially interesting in this regard, as it shows that more complex examples of secondary-level exegesis were not reserved for commentary proper. In a certain sense, because of their thematic focus and rhetorical power, they occur quite readily in extended thematic discussions. This goes a long way to explaining the occurrence of this exegetical pattern in Philo’s thematically driven treatises in the Allegorical Commentary, as well as in Paul’s letters. Also pertinent to the present inquiry is the fact that the lemmatic interpretation of Meno 98a3 – 8 in K 2.52– 3.25 retains a digressive aesthetic even outside the formal commentary. K 2.32– 52 contains a coherent primary discussion on two kinds of knowledge; K 2.52– 3.25 then introduces a secondary set of concepts, primarily those of Meno 98a3 – 8, and sequentially interprets them, all the while keeping an eye on the foregoing primary discussion about the two kinds of knowledge.

 See the similar echo of Meno 98a4– 5 a little earlier in the introduction (K 2.29 – 32), where the commentator notes that “the stable reception (μόνιμος παραδοχή) of things which have been accurately discerned becomes knowledge (γίνεται ἐπιστήμη).

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

145

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls 3.5.1 Introduction Any investigation of the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition would not be complete without a discussion of the exegetical literature discovered in the Judean Desert (and, one should add, half a century earlier in the Cairo Geniza).¹¹² Indeed, Fraade argues that Philo and the pesharim are the primary two relevant backgrounds to the rabbinic commentaries emerging to literary light in the early third century of the Common Era.¹¹³ What I am attempting here is a different and less balanced kind of triangulation: one between Philo and the pesharim, on the one hand, and Paul’s letters on the other. Traditionally, many scholars have supposed very different backgrounds for these two kinds of commentary. Philo adapted and developed the genre of the philosophical commentary to fit the needs of pentateuchal interpretation. The precursor for Essene commentaries, by contrast, is generally thought to be the Near Eastern practice of dream interpretation, stemming from earlier Mesopotamian practices.¹¹⁴ Philonic allegory and Essene pesharim thus represent two different methods employed by Jews commenting on biblical texts during the Second Temple period, each of which has a different literary and religious pedigree undergirding its claims to interpretive authority. To borrow from Fraade’s helpful description, Philo’s commentaries are primarily “dialogical,” trading on a proc-

 I use “Hellenistic” here in the broadest, chronological sense. This accords largely with the thesis of Martin Hengel, that the historian cannot exempt the Judaism of Palestine from the forces of Hellenization. See Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974 [1969]).  Steven Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (SUNY Series in Judaica; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 3.  Maura P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 231– 234; Fraade, Tradition to Commentary, 4; Martti Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination: Qumran Exegesis, Omen Interpretation and Literary Prophecy,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (ed. K. de Troyer and A. Lange; CBET 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 43 – 60; and Uri Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 293 – 308. Critically, Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 303, argues that the connection of the pšr/ptr specifically with dream interpretation is overwrought and that the root should be linked to a wider practice of divinatory commentary.

146

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

ess of questions and answers, whereas the pesharim operate in a “deictic” fashion, asserting new meanings by way of prophetic revelation.¹¹⁵ There can be no doubt that Paul’s exegesis at times bears certain strong hermeneutic similarities with the pesharim in its deictic orientation. One thinks, in the context of this study, of the deictic assertion ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν (2 Cor 3:17a). Such deictic assertions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Fraade argues, may well find their most immediate counterpart in the context of Mesopotamian dream interpretation or omen commentaries more generally, even in instances when they lack the particular terminus technicus ‫ פשר‬to connect them with the book of Daniel.¹¹⁶ While a complete assessment of the importance of the Dead Sea documents for Pauline exegesis far exceeds the scope of this study, it will prove illuminating to investigate whether Paul’s exegetical pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 appears anywhere in the Qumran commentaries or related literature.¹¹⁷

3.5.2 The Pesharim The most natural place to begin the quest for parallels to Paul’s sequential lemmatic exegesis in the Qumran literature is with the pesharim. There is no need for a comprehensive survey of these texts, as several excellent introductions to this corpus now exist.¹¹⁸ As a starting point, I accept the basic division of these texts

 Fraade, Tradition to Commentary, 7, 14.  See the use of the term in Daniel 2, 4, and 5. Horgan, Pesharim, 254– 256.  The question of the relationship between biblical exegesis in Paul’s letters and at Qumran has generated a vast literature and is riddled with methodological difficulties. Scholars who have read Paul in light of Qumran exegesis include Timothy H. Lim, “Studying the Qumran Scrolls and Paul in their Historical Context,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. J. R. Davila; STDJ 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 135 – 156; idem, Holy Scripture, 123 – 176; Carol K. Stockhausen, “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSS 83; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 143 – 64; eadem, Moses’ Veil, 130, 143; Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected”; idem, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and the New Testament,” in idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament [= Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays] (The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 [1971/1979]), 3 – 58; idem, “‘4QTestimonia’ and the New Testament,” Semitic Background, 59 – 89; Dunn, “2 Corinthians,” 314– 17; E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 139 – 147.  In addition to Horgan, Pesharim, see Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim (Companion to the Scrolls 3; London: T & T Clark, 2002) and Jonathan G. Campbell, The Exegetical Texts (Companion to the Scrolls 4; London: T & T Clark, 2004).

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

147

into two categories, continuous and thematic pesharim. ¹¹⁹ Since the first group, the continuous pesharim, conform most overtly to the sequential aspect of Paul’s pattern in 2 Corinthians, I will begin there. The continuous pesharim claim to be inspired Essene lemmatic exegeses of Israel’s prophetic scriptures. Like Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, the continuous pesharim (1QpHab, 4QpNah, and 1/4QpPsa are representative) break down scriptural texts into one or two verse primary lemmata and proceed to interpret them sequentially. The continuous pesharim depart from the pattern in Philo’s magnum opus, however, in two key aspects. First, rather than taking Mosaic Torah as their primary exegetical focus (as Philo does),¹²⁰ the technical term pesher seems to be applied almost uniquely to books belonging to the second division of authoritative Jewish scriptures, the Prophets. We have no continuous pesher on any book from the Pentateuch. Second, as Fraade notes, the continuous pesharim do not employ secondary lemmata. Rather, in the context of the sectarians’ immanent eschatology, the primary prophetic texts remain the focus of interpretation and the vehicle of communal formation.¹²¹ Given this fact, it will come as no surprise that one finds no sustained sequential lemmatic exegesis of 6 – 7 scriptural verses in the course of a single pesher. Of course, one could combine several pesher interpretations to yield the net effect created by Paul in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, but one would have to eliminate the lemmatic quotations from the text, as well as the technical term ‫פשר‬, to do so. Such a process would involve too much manipulation of the pesher form. The continuous pesharim as such offer little in the way of a substantive parallel to the Pauline pattern under scrutiny. The second kind of pesher commentary discovered at Qumran, the thematic pesharim, holds more promise for providing relevant parallels for the current inquiry. Two characteristic examples of this group are 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) and 4QFlorilegium (4Q174).¹²² Rather than treating one primary text, lemma by

 This distinction was posed by Jean Carminac, “Le document de Qumran sur Melchisédeq,” RevQ 7 (1969 – 71): 360 – 61.  On the importance of Genesis particularly within the Philonic corpus, see Gregory E. Sterling, “When the Beginning is the End: the Place of Genesis in the Commentaries of Philo,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen; VTSup 152; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 427– 446.  Fraade, Tradition to Commentary, 5 – 6.  See Horgan, Pesharim, 3, and Lim, Pesharim, 14– 15, for a more complete list of texts which belong to this category, as well as Campbell, The Exegetical Texts. For a monograph-length treatment of 4QFlorilegium, see George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985). For 11QMelchizedek, see Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša (CBQMS 10; Washington, D.C.: the Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981).

148

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

lemma, these texts offer interpretations of a cluster or catena of biblical texts, usually grouped around a topic or theological theme. As such, while still employing the technical term ‫פשר‬, the thematic pesharim interweave texts from various divisions of the scriptures. Insofar as they also treat various biblical pericopae sequentially and relate them to a theological theme, might they also present a kind of secondary-level exegesis? Several difficulties prevent us from answering this question in the affirmative with confidence. First, the fragmentary nature of these texts gives us precious little material to interpret. In the case of 11QMelchizedek, for instance, three columns of the text, made up of eleven fragments, are partially extant.¹²³ A second difficulty, which flows from the first, regards the structural place of the biblical texts present in the thematic pesharim. Were these texts primarily thematic discourses peppered with scriptural materials? Or do they in fact follow a primary biblical lemma, and hence approximate the synagogue homily? Finally, we cannot conclude with certainty the Sitz im Leben of the thematic pesharim. Thus establishing their precise relation to the commentary tradition and sectarian religious life remains difficult. The continuous pesharim are most likely a natural outgrowth of Essene life in the camps, where frequent all night “study sessions” of scripture took place.¹²⁴ The process of searching the scriptures and commentary production was not merely a way to preserve the Teacher’s prophetic interpretations, but provided a practical means of indoctrinating new initiates.¹²⁵ The context of the thematic pesharim, by contrast, is not so clear. George Brooke proposed a homiletic Sitz im Leben for these texts within the worship lives of the Essene congregations—a hypothesis also advanced by Milik at an earlier phase. Without further evidence of lectionary cycles at Qumran, this thesis, however plausible, remains difficult to substantiate.¹²⁶ The clearest examples of secondary-level exegesis in the Qumran literature are to be found not within the pesharim, but in the reuse of pesher traditions outside the commentary genre.

 Campbell, Exegetical Texts, 57.  See 1QS 6:6 – 8; Horgan, Pesharim, 3; J. T. Milik, “Fragments d’un midrash de Micheé dans les manuscrits de Qumrân,” RB 59 (1952): 412– 18, esp. 418.  See Fraade, Tradition to Commentary, 5, who suggests that the pesharim were a part of the sect’s “curriculum of studies.”  Brooke, 4QFlorilegium, 164; J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (trans. J. Strugnell; London: SCM Press, 1959), 41: “These isolated exemplars [i. e. testimonia/florilegia] … are to be connected with the expositions of the Bible that were given in the sect’s meetings for worship.”

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

149

Nonetheless, I think one thematic pesher, 11QMelchizedek, offers an important example of formal, implicit scriptural exegesis, worthy of consideration in this study, one in which a particular prophetic text (Isa 61:1– 2) appears to tacitly govern the structure of interpretation of various other texts drawn from both the Torah and the Prophets (including Daniel and Psalms). In this remarkable text, the Essene commentator cites or paraphrases elements from Isa 61:1– 2 in sequence in at least five distinct loci of his interpretation. This approximates other forms of secondary-level exegesis, even if the overall relationship of the thematic pesher to this descriptive category remains provisional. The practice may be related to the use of prophetic secondary lemmata in Paul (Gal 4:27, Rom 4:7– 8), in the homiletic midrashim of the Amoraic period, and occasionally even in Philo.¹²⁷ As such, it will provide both point and counterpoint to the pattern of 2 Cor 3:7– 18.

3.5.3 11QMelchizedek: Explicit Controls¹²⁸ Although several columns of the text called 11QMelchizedek have been reconstructed, the bulk of the legible discourse is contained in Column II, which will, by virtue of this fact, be the focus of this analysis. Like the continuous pesharim, as well as various texts in Philo and Paul (esp. Gal 4:21– 31 and Rom 4:3 – 25), 11QMelchizedek is explicitly governed by a veritable host of citation and interpretative formulae. Scriptural citations are frequently introduced by such formulae such as ‫אשר אמר‬, ‫ועליו אמר‬, ‫ כאשר כתוב עליו‬and various minor permutations of these components. The prophetic interpretations offered in the text seem usually to be introduced by the interpretative formula ‫“( פשרו‬its interpretation”), which is attested twice in the document (11QMelch 2.12, 17) and is plausibly restored either once or twice more (11QMelch 2.4, 20), although not without contention in the latter case.¹²⁹  For a recent study of Philo’s citation of prophetic books, see Naomi Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from Prophets and Writings: Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup; Leiden: Brill, 2007), especially chapter four: “Citations from the Latter Prophets,” 72– 73. All five of the “certain citations from Isaiah” are secondary lemmata occurring either in the Questions and Answers or the Allegorical Commentary.  See Table 3.8 for the text and scriptural citations/allusions in synoptic columns.  The use of ‫ פשרו‬to introduce an interpretation of verses from the Torah rather than the Prophets (as would be the case if it is restored in 11QMelch 2.4), while rare, is not unattested in Qumran literature. See especially 4Q252 (Commentary on Genesisa), where the term is used to interpret Gen 49:3 – 4 and 4Q464 (Exposition on the Patriarchs) where the term is used to interpret Gen 15:13 (Lim, Pesharim, 17). Regarding the restoration of the interpretative formula in

150

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

Provided, however, that we accept the first restoration in 11QMelch 2.4, the text can be neatly divided into three sections, each of which begins with the formal citation of one or more scriptural texts, followed by an interpretation introduced by the formula ‫פשרו‬. §1. 11QMelch 2.2 – 9a The first section begins with two formal citations of pentateuchal texts, Lev 25:13 and Deut 15:2 (11QMelch 2.2– 4a). The introductory formula preceding the first (Lev 25:13), read tentatively by Martin Abegg as ‫ואשר‬ ‫אמר‬, suggests that at least one additional citation preceded this one in the catena (see 11QMelch 2.11 for just this usage). Unfortunately, the full range of texts being interpreted in the subsequent pesher (11QMelch 2.4b – 8a) is lost. Of the two extant lemmata, both of which refer to the law of the seventh year, Leviticus 25 seems to claim slightly more of the interpreter’s attention. The theme of “Jubilee” (Lev 25:13) is explicitly echoed three times (11QMelch 2.7ter) in the discussion of the eschatological release, and Melchizedek’s act of returning (‫ )ישיבמה‬the captives echoes the return mentioned in Lev 25:13 (‫)תשובו‬.¹³⁰ Beyond references to the cited text, the interpretation in the first section clearly looks back on the broader discussion of the seventh year in Leviticus 25. The mention of ‫ יום הכפורים‬in 11QMelch 2.7 echoes Lev 25:9 and the phrase “cry to them release from bondage” (‫ )וקרא להמה דרור‬in 11QMelch 2.6 echoes, among other texts, Lev 25:10 (‫)וקראתם דרור‬. Intriguingly, Column II also ends with a second formal citation of Lev 25:9 (11QMelch 2.25). While the text thus does not appear to offer a sequential exegesis of a pericope from Leviticus 25, many scholars have understood this chapter as, in some sense, the dominant chord or the primary theme of the interpretative work—perhaps even the formal Torah reading of a liturgical service. The citation of Deut 15:2, for its part, is not completely ignored; its theme of the remission of debts in the seventh year is understood, by way of a popular Second Temple Jewish equation, as the loosening of the burden of sins (‫ )לעזב להמה משא כול עוונותיהמה‬in 11QMelch 2.7.¹³¹

11QMelch 2.20: while Florentino García-Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998) restores ‫ה]אבלים פשרו‬, Kobelski, Melkizedek and Melchireša‘, restores instead ‫א]בלי‬ ‫ציון‬. J. J. M. Roberts, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 6B; Westminster: John Knox, 2002), restores only ]‫לנח]ם[ ה‬, noting that he is uncertain about the final ‫( ה‬which might leave room for correcting to the unanimous reading of the scriptural versions here).  The occurrence of the C- rather than the G-stem of ‫ שוב‬may arise from the author’s implicit exegesis of another text, Jer 34:8, which I will discuss in the subsequent section. As the text stands, however, Melchizedek’s returning of the captives is clearly intended to be an eschatological fulfillment of Lev 25:13 as cited in the text.  For a stimulating account of how the Second Temple Jewish concept of sin exchanged the traditional metaphor of sin as burden for the novel metaphor of sin as debt, see Gary A. Ander-

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

151

§2. 11QMelch 2.9b – 15a In the course of describing the tenth Jubilee and the eschatological Day of Atonement, the commentator introduces the eschatological figure of the divine Melchizedek (11QMelch 2.5bis, 9), no longer the mere-mortal priest from Salem. In this second section, the commentator spells out, through biblical interpretation, the mediatorial role played by this heavenly advocate and judge. The commentator cites, with formulae, a catena of psalms (Ps 82:1, Ps 7:8 – 9, and Ps 82:2; 11QMelch 2.9b – 11) in a manner strongly reminiscent of the catenae in Heb 1:5 – 14 and Heb 2:12– 13 (see also Rom 9:25 – 29; 10:18 – 21). The two citations of Psalm 82 are clearly dominant, “enchained” most directly to the preceding narrative through the root ‫( שפט‬11QMelch 2.9a, 10 [Ps 82:1], 11 [Ps 82:2]). All three texts are linked thematically through the theme of future judgment (Ps 82:1 ‫ ;ישפט‬Ps 7:8 – 9 ‫ ;ידין‬Ps 82:2 ‫)תשפוטו‬, the first two by similarity of form (3rd singular G-stem prefix), the first and third by virtue of their common verbal root and connection in the same psalm, and all three by their eschatological (prefix/future) significance. After the interpretative formula ‫פשרו‬, the remainder of this second section offers various interpretations of the catena, beginning from the perverse judgment mentioned in Ps 82:2 and working backward through the catena to the (tautologically) just judgment of Melchizedek (11QMelch 2.12– 15a). §3. 11QMelch 2.15b – 25 Unfortunately, the text of the interpretation itself is quite poorly preserved. The column becomes readable again only at the end of the section, with the phrase: “this is the day of peace [of] which he spoke … by the hand of the prophet Isaiah which he said: ‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger proclaiming peace, bearing a message of good news, proclaiming salvation, saying to Zion, Your God is King.’” At this point, the scriptural focus shifts, and we begin the third and final section of the column. The primary lemma to be interpreted in this section is Isa 52:7 (11QMelch 2.15b – 16), and unlike the pattern of the previous two sections, it is cited alone. The subsequent interpretation (11QMelch 2.17– 25), following the requisite interpretive formula ‫פשרו‬, is the most elaborate of the entire column. It contains within it not merely an eschatological interpretation of the verse, but explicitly cites secondary lemmata in the course of identifying the prophetic significance of Isa 52:7. The day of peace here proclaimed is presumably to be brought about by means of Melchizedek’s future judgment in (§2) 11QMelch 2.9b – 15a. The pesher

son, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). See also Michael Bartos and Bernard M. Levinson, “‘This Is the Manner of the Remission’: Implicit Legal Exegesis in 11QMelchizedek as a Response to the Formation of the Torah,” JBL 132 (2013): 351– 71.

152

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

on Isa 52:7 in (§3) 11QMelch 2.15b – 25 explains how that day will come by expounding the sectarian history of salvation, which is also, in part, a history of revelation. Unlike the previous two sections, in which the interpretations were only loosely (at the lexical level) and non-sequentially linked to their respective lemmata, here the pesher explicitly interprets five specific words or phrases drawn sequentially from Isa 52:7. This pesher is thus much longer than the preceding two and, in light of its formal differences and complexity, gives the impression of stemming from an earlier independent interpretative tradition, perhaps a continuous pesher. The five scriptural figures interpreted by the pesher are (1) ‫“( ההרים‬the mountains”); (2) ‫“( המבשר‬the herald”); (3) ‫“( המבשר טוב משמיע ישועה‬the herald of good news proclaiming salvation”); (4) ‫“( ציון‬Zion”); and (5) ‫“( אלוהיך‬your God”). These signifiers are related to their prophetic signified in the pesher by means of deictic assertion—another indication that this third section does not follow the same exegetical pattern as the prior two. While the former two pesharim are “about” (‫)על‬ some broad eschatological phenomenon,¹³² the final pesher of the column is comprised of a list of interpretative identities, a symbolic “lexicon” similar to the type found in Matt 13:18 – 23, 13:37b – 39. Of these figures, (1), (4), and (5) are most easily explained. (1) The “mountains” are the prophets (11QMelch 2.17); (4) “Zion” is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness (11QMelch 2.23 – 24); and (5) “your God” is the eschatological heavenly Melchizedek (11QMelch 2.24– 25). This leaves only the two heralds unexplained (2 and 3). The first (2) “herald,” we are told, is the “anointed of the Spirit” (11QMelch 2.18, ‫)משיח הרוח‬, which is undoubtedly a compressed allusion to Isa 61:1; however this Messianic figure is subsequently explained through a scriptural prooftext not from Isaiah but from Dan 9:25. The (3) “herald of good news proclaiming salvation” remains unidentified due to a lacuna in the text, but it appears that he is not given a deictic identification like the other four figures. Rather: he is the one about whom it is written […] ‘to comfort the afflicted’ (Isa 61:2). Its interpretation: to educate them in all the ages of the world. (11QMelch 2.18 – 20)

The damage to this part of the scroll is severe and renders any reconstruction necessarily tentative. The suggestion of ‫ פשרו‬in 11QMelch 2.20 is questionable, but not impossible.¹³³ The relevant bit of 11QMelch 2.20 adopted by Abegg, Gar-

 11QMelch 2.4: ‫ ;פשרו[ לאחרית הימים על השבויים‬11QMelch 2.12: ‫פשרו על בליעל ועל רוחי גורלו‬.  See discussion above in note 129.

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

153

cia-Martinez, and Puech reads: [‫לנח]ם[ ה]אבלים פשרו‬. If “to comfort the afflicted” is correct, then it looks as though 11QMelch 2.19 – 20 originally contained a prooftext identifying the herald of good tidings with the “herald” of Isa 61:1– 2. Judging from the length of the lacuna it makes some sense to fill out the lines by simply restoring Isa 61:2, along with the rest of the citation formula, to 11QMelch 2.19 as follows: ‫ טוב משמי]ע ישועה [הואה הכתוב עליו אשר ]אמר לקרא שנת רצון ליהוה ויום נקם לאלהינו‬19 [‫ לנח]ם[ ה]אבלים פשרו‬20

This restoration gives the line a length of 76 characters (letters and spaces), which is well within the length permitted by the manuscript.¹³⁴ The one problem with this restoration is that line 20, ‫לנח]ם[ ה]אבלים‬, diverges from the Masoretic (‫ )לנחם כל אבלים‬and Septuagint (παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας) versions of Isa 61:2 in omitting the word “all” before “the afflicted.” The reading of MT/LXX is further confirmed unanimously by all the Qumran Isaiah scrolls in which the verse is extant: (1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsab, and 4QIsam). It is perhaps in recognition of the paraphrastic nature of the reference here that Kobelski and Brooke prefer to restore ‫לנח]ם[ א]בלי ציון‬, omitting the term ‫ פשרו‬entirely. Despite the apparent citation formula in 11QMelch 2.19, then, it is not clear what form of Isa 61:2, if any, should be restored here or whether what originally followed the citation formula was rather an allusive paraphrase or string of paraphrases. The final section of 11QMelchizedek, Column II, thus contains a pesher on a single primary lemma drawn from the prophets (Isa 52:7) and includes at least one (Dan 9:25) if not two (Isa 61:2) formally cited secondary lemmata. This pattern is distinct from either of the previous two sections of this thematic pesher. The presence of formal secondary lemmata in (§3) 11QMelch 2.15b – 25, however, does not exhaust the passage’s importance for this study. Turning to the implicit scriptural controls on this text will demonstrate that Isaiah 61 plays an even more prominent structuring role than is immediately apparent.

 Cf. 11QMelch 2.3 (80 characters); 2.6 (75 characters); 2.18 (72 characters). Campbell, Exegetical Texts, 58, provides some minimal support for this suggestion, noting that “Isaiah 61.1– 2 is prominent within 11QMelchizedek by way of allusion and probably, when the document was in its complete state, in the form of a citation in II, 20.” However, Campbell, ibid., rightly regards as less plausible the notion that 11QMelchizedek constituted a continuous pesher on Isaiah.

154

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

3.5.4 11QMelchizedek: Implicit Prophetic Controls Neither of the secondary lemmata introduced in (§3) 11QMelch 2.15b – 25 leads to an independent discussion of that lemma in the manner of Philo’s commentaries. One of the texts referenced in this section, however, does play a larger role within the pesher. As Merill P. Miller has written, Isa 61:1– 2 in some sense structures the passage by supplying Stichwörter,¹³⁵ and a careful look at the various references to this text will reveal that the author of the pesher seems to have used Isa 61:1– 2 as a key to understanding the meaning encoded in the explicit lemmata he interprets. The first clear allusion to Isa 61:1– 2 comes immediately after the first pesher formula in 11QMelch 2.4. The eschatological subject matter of Lev 25:13 and Deut 15:2, the Essene interpreter claims, is ‫על השבויים‬, “concerning the captives.” That this phrase constitutes an allusion to Isa 61:1 is ensured by the addition of ‫וקרא‬ ‫להמה דרור‬, “cry liberty to them” soon after in 11QMelch 2.6. Taken together, these two echoes amount to a composite allusion to Isa 61:1c, ‫לקרא לשבויים דרור‬, “to cry liberty to the captives.” The commentator thus interprets the Pentateuchal texts about the Jubilee year in terms of Third Isaiah’s prophecy of return from exile. As a brief excursus on 11QMelch 2.4– 6, I note that while Isa 61:1c is the clearest scriptural reference in this section, several other intertexts are also intentionally evoked. Because of the thematization of the “captives” in 11QMelch 2.4, the phrase in 11QMelch 2.6 (‫ )וקרא להמה דרור‬becomes a more polyvalent echo, drawing together at least three biblical texts: Lev 25:10, Isa 61:1, and Jer 34:8 (15, 17).¹³⁶ These are the only three scriptural passages in which the idiom “cry liberty” occurs (total of 5 times), and each has left its mark on this pesher. Lev 25:10 is clear-

 Merill P. Miller, “The Function of Isa 61:1– 2 in 11QMelchizedek,” JBL 88 (1969): 467– 469. Cf. George J. Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 150, who argues that there is not one primary scriptural text here, but two: “In the principal section that survives, there is a set of thematic interpretative developments more like the interwoven themes of a fugue than the more straightforward playing of one melody after another. Two texts provide point and counterpoint and then are variously returned to during the course of the exegesis. These two texts are Leviticus 25 and Isaiah 61.” The commentator’s use of Isa 61:1– 2 constitutes a prime example of what Brooke calls elsewhere “implicit prophetic exegesis.” See George J. Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation in the Pesharim,” in Henze, Companion to Biblical Interpretation, 235 – 54.  This Jeremianic intertext does not figure prominently in the treatment by Bartos and Levinson, “Implicit Legal Exegesis in 11QMelchizedek,” who stress the halakhic aspect of the connection between Leviticus and Deuteronomy; or in John S. Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation (VetTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 290.

3.5 Exegesis in the Sectarian Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

155

ly related to the primary lemma cited from Lev 25:13. One might even hypothesize that Lev 25:10 was part of the quotation originally at the head of this interpretive chapter. Whether cited or no, I suggest that this was one textual trigger which created an exegetical link between his primary text from Leviticus and the secondary lemma from Isaiah 61. There is good reason, however, to think that ‫ וקרא להמה דרור‬is meant to recall Jeremiah 34:8 as well. This is not only because it is the scriptural text which is most closely approximated by the echo (Jer 34:8, ‫)לקרא להמ דרור‬, but also because Jer 34:8 is the only one of the three texts to associate the proclamation of the year of return with a figure whose title at least means “righteous king”: ‫הדבר אשר היה אל ירמיהו מאת יהוה אחרי כרת המלך צדקיהו ברית את כל העם אשר בירושלים לקרא להם‬ .‫דרור‬ The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, after King Zedekiah made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty to them. (Jer 34:8)

King Zedekiah’s (‫ )המלך צדקיהו‬proclamation of liberty to those in Jerusalem in this text mirrors so exactly Melchizedek’s proclamation of freedom in 11QMelch 2.6 that the etymological connection between their names can be no accident. The explicit reference to the sabbatical year in Jer 34:14 (citing Deut 15:1– 12) shores up this judgment.¹³⁷ Jer 34:8 appears to be one of the scriptural prooftexts on which the sectarians drew to construct and defend the notion of an eschatological redemptive king who bore the same name. The fact that King Zedekiah, despite his proclamation of the Jubilee year, did not walk according to God’s righteousness, but in fact betrayed his own name and escalated the tensions which led to the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:18 – 20) undoubtedly fueled the symbolic eschatological reversal achieved in the pesher in a way that might fairly be called typological. The first “Melchizedek,” who made a covenant and proclaimed a Jubilee, becomes both type and foil of his eschatological counterpart, who both redeems the new Essene “covenanters” and at last undoes the sin of Zedekiah that warranted captivity. This discussion of Jer 34:8 is admittedly a digression from my main goal, which is to trace the commentator’s implicit exegesis of Isa 61:1– 2 throughout 11QMelchizedek. However, it is helpful, in this instance, to illustrate the depth and complexity of the commentator’s allusive artistry. In a sense, Lev 25:10 is being read in light of Isa 61:1, which itself is being read through the lens of Jer

 The centrality of this chapter from Deuteronomy, especially Deut 15:2, as a halakhic intertext in 11QMelch 2.6 has been argued recently by Bartos and Levinson, “Implicit Legal Exegesis in 11QMelchizedek.”

156

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

34:8 and its eschatological interpretation by the Essenes. It comes as no surprise, then, when a third reference to the Isaianic text in 11QMelch 2.9 is likewise altered, in a Jeremianic fashion, to reflect concern with the figure of Melchizedek. Here, Isa 61:2aα, “the year of the Lord’s favor” (‫)לקרא שנת רצון ליהוה‬, is tellingly rewritten as “the year of Melchizedek’s favor” (‫)לשנת רצון למלכי צדק‬. Isaiah 61 enters the pesher for a fourth time in the second interpretive section (§2) 11QMelch 2.9b – 15a, again to describe an action of the heavenly Melchizedek. Melchizedek is the one who in 11QMelch 2.13 will finally “carry out the vengeance of God’s judgment” (‫)ומלכי צדק יקום נקם משפטי א]ל‬. Isa 61:2aβ (‫ )ויום נקם לאלהינו‬lies close to the surface. In the third interpretive section, (§3) 11QMelch 2.15b – 25, the commentator again references Isa 61:2, this time citing or paraphrasing Isa 61:2b in 11QMelch 2.(19–)20. When we gather together all this data, we are confronted with an impressive fact. In the course of five verbal echoes and citations, spanning all three major interpretative sections of the pesher column, the commentator draws sequentially on four distinct phrases from Isa 61:1– 2 (Table 3.5): Table 3.5: Isa 61:1 – 2 in 11QMelchizedek QMelch QMelch QMelch QMelch QMelch

. . . . .

Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa

: : :aα :aβ :b

Such sustained, sequential use of a biblical passage cannot be an accident, but bears the mark of a schooled exegete. The implicit exegesis of Isa 61:1– 2 in 11QMelchizedek thus stands in significant proximity to the kind of secondarylevel exegesis I have been investigating in this study. Several features set it apart from the pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. First, the length of the biblical passage treated is shorter in 11QMelchizedek. It is closer to what one would expect of a primary lemma. Second, the implicit exegesis occurs not as a digression or a secondary thematic illustration, but is the very vehicle for this primary-level exegesis. This demonstrates, nonetheless, another iteration of the implicit sequential pattern found in Paul and in several different subforms throughout the Jewish commentary tradition.

3.7 Additional Tables

157

3.6 Conclusion Where has all of this left us in terms of the discussion of 2 Cor 3:7– 18? On the one hand, this study of the commentary tradition has uncovered an underappreciated body of comparative material for understanding Paul’s interpretation of Exod 34:29 – 35 in the secondary lemmata of Philo’s Allegorical Commentary. Many of Philo’s secondary-level exegeses have both formal and (as we shall see in chapter six) topical parallels (Moses, sons of Israel) with 2 Cor 3:7– 18. These similarities comprise a major new body of evidence concretely linking 2 Cor 3:7– 18 with the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition. Exact parallels to Paul’s pattern were not so readily forthcoming in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nonetheless, these Platonic and Essene works evinced other types of sequential exegesis, in which secondary lemmata played a structuring role within their respective discussions. The presence of secondary-level exegesis in the introduction to the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, moreover, offered a reminder that Greek textual commentary as a function was not limited to the ὑπόμνημα or even the exegetical monograph, but occurs in a wide variety of other genres. This sets the stage for the task of the following chapter. If Schironi is right, then we cannot hope to understand textual commentary in Hellenistic and Greco-Roman literature until we have surveyed materials which do not directly stem from the academic commentary tradition. Studying secondary-level exegesis in non-commentary texts will provide a broader context in which to situate Paul’s epistolary exegesis, to understand its rhetorical function in a letter, as well as to understand its relation to Jewish Moses traditions.

3.7 Additional Tables Table 3.6: Philo’s Chapter on Gen 6:3 in Gig. 19 – 57 § MBL: Gen :: “My spirit will not abide among men forever, because they are flesh” § – : Initial explanation: the s/Spirit stays (μένει) but does not abide (καταμένει); even bad souls receive some knowledge. § SBL: Gen :: One sense of “spirit” is physical, like the spirit hovering over the water in creation. § SBL: Exod : – : Bezalel provides a second meaning of “spirit”: pure knowledge (ἀκήρατος ἐπιστήμη). § –  SBL: Num :: Moses had the same divine s/Spirit, which was given to the seventy elders. § – : Return to MBL (Gen :) “Because they are flesh”: discourse on σάρξ

158

3. Sequential Exegesis in Hellenistic Commentaries

§ SBL:

Lev :: “A man, a man shall not go near to any that is akin to his flesh to uncover their shame. I am the Lord.” §: Initial explanation (for the secondary lemma) §: Exposition of (a) “A man, a man”; (b) “go near to anything that is akin to the flesh” § – : Exposition of (c) “go near … to uncover their shame” § – : First exposition of (d) “I am the Lord”: Lord as “good”; good of the flesh, good of the soul § – : Second exposition of (d) “I am the Lord”: Lord as “king” § Return to MBL: (So Runia, “Structure,”  – ); Verbal allusion (no citation) § SBL: Num :: “Moses and the ark were not moved” § SBL: Deut :: “You, stand here with me” § –  SBL: Exod :: Jethro (allegorically “vanity”) mocks Moses § SBL: Lev :,  (allusion): exemplum of High priest’s annual approach. § Return to MBL: “The divine s/Spirit will not abide” in most, i. e. in those fixed on the multiple “ends” of life; rather, only in the mind which comes naked to God, who has taken off the inner curtain and veil of opinion (τὸ ἐσωτάτω καταπέτασμα καὶ προκάλυμμα τῆς δόξης). § SBL: Exod :(–?) § Return to MBL: “Their days shall be a hundred and twenty years” § –  SBL: Deut : causes tension with Gen :; answer postponed until the entire prophetic life is studied.

Table 3.7: Structure of Abr. 62 – 88 § – : Literal paraphrase of Gen : – : §: Introduction of the allegorical method § – : Allegorical meaning of Abraham’s migration ἀπὸ τῆς Χαλδαίων γῆς “from the land of Chaldea” (Abr. ) § – : Allegorical meaning of Abraham’s migration εἰς τὴν Χαρραίων γῆν, “to the land of Haran” (Abr. ) § – : SBL: First proof, Citation of Gen : § – : SBL: Second proof, Allusion to Gen : § – : Allegorical meaning of Abraham’s migration εἰς ἕτερον τόπον, “to another place” (Abr. ) = Gen :, ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ

‫‪159‬‬

‫‪3.7 Additional Tables‬‬

‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬

‫על]‬ ‫מ‬ ‫[‬ ‫]‬ ‫[ ֯ל ֯ו֯א֯שר אמר בשנת היובל ]הזואת תשובו איש אל אחוזתו ועליו אמר וז[ה‬ ‫]‬ ‫שה] ברעהו לוא יגוש את רעהו ואת אחיו כיא קרא [שמטה‬ ‫]דבר השמטה[ שמוט כול בעל משה יד אשר י ̇‬ ‫[וא֯שר‬ ‫֯ל֯א]ל פשרו [ ֯ל֯א֯חרית הימים על השבויים אשר]‬ ‫[ ֯והמה נ֯ח ֯ל]ת מלכי צ[דק אשר‬ ‫ס֯תר̇]ו[ ומנחלת מלכי צדק כ ֯י]א‬ ‫א ̇ו ̇ו ̇‬ ‫המה ֯ה֯חב ̇‬ ‫מ ֯ו ̇ר ֯י ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫הדבר הזה‬ ‫ה] משא [ ̇כ ̇ול עוונותיהמה ו]כן יהי[֯ה ̇‬ ‫ישיבמה אליהמה וקרא להמה דרור לעזוב לה̇מ ̇‬ ‫ח֯ר ֯ת֯ש]עה ה[יובלים ו ̇י]ום הכפ[ ֯ורים ה]וא[ה ֯ס]וף [֯ה]יו[בל העשירי‬ ‫֯ב֯ש֯ב ֯ו֯ע היובל ֯הראי֯שון א ̇‬ ‫[ם ע ̇ל ֯י]המ[ה הת] [ל֯פ]י [֯כ]ול עש[ותמה כיא‬ ‫אנש]י [ ̇גורל מל]כי [צדק]‬ ‫לכפר בו על כול בני ]אור ו[ ̇‬ ‫שלת משפט כאשר כתוב‬ ‫מ ̇‬ ‫הואה הק̇ ̇ץ ֯לשנת הרצון למלכי צ֯דק ֯ול֯צ֯ב]איו ע[֯ם קדושי אל למ ̇‬ ‫מ]רו [ ̇עלי]ה[‬ ‫א ̇‬ ‫בקורב אלוהים ישפוט ו ̇עליו ̇‬ ‫עליו בשיר ̇י דויד אשר אמר אלוהים ]נ[ ̇צב ב ̇ע]דת אל [ ̇‬ ‫למרום שובה אל ידין עמים ואשר א]מר עד מתי ת[שפוטו עוול ופני רשע]י[ם תש]או ס[לה‬ ‫[ ̇ים בס ̇ו]רמ[֯ה מח̇וקי אל ל]הרשיע[‬ ‫פשרו על בליעל ועל ר̇ו֯חי גורלו אש]ר‬ ‫ומלכי ̇צדק יקום נ֯ק֯ם מש֯פ֯טי א]ל וביום ההואה יצי[ ֯ל]מה מיד [֯בליעל ומיד כול ֯ר]וחי גורלו[‬ ‫[ ̇כ ̇ול בני אל והפ]‬ ‫ובעזרו כול אלי ]הצדק וה[ ֯ואה א]שר‬ ‫ביד ישע[יה הנביא אשר אמר] מה [ ̇נאוו‬ ‫מ ̇ר]‬ ‫ה]שלום א[שר א ̇‬ ‫הזואת הואה יום ̇‬ ‫אלוהיך‬ ‫ה ]א[ ̇ומר לציון ]מלך [ ̇‬ ‫על הרים רגל]י[ מבש]ר מ[שמיע שלום מב]שר טוב משמיע ישוע[ ̇‬ ‫מ] [ לכול ]‬ ‫[ ̇‬ ‫ה ̇נביא ̇י]ם [המה א]‬ ‫פשרו הה ̇ר ֯ים] המה[ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫משיח הרו̇]ח[ ֯כאשר אמר ד ̇נ]יאל עליו עד משיח נגיד שבועים שבעה ומבשר‬ ‫]והמבשר הו]אה [ ̇‬ ‫[ טו̇֯ב משמי]ע ישועה [הואה ה֯כתוב עליו אשר‬ ‫מה בכול קצי הע]ולם‬ ‫שכיל ̇‬ ‫ח]ם[ ה]אבלים פשרו [ל]ה[ ̇‬ ‫לנ ̇‬ ‫הא‬ ‫מ ̇‬ ‫[ ̇‬ ‫באמת ̇ל֯מ]‬ ‫[ ̇‬ ‫[ ̇נ ̇‬ ‫ק‬ ‫[ר הוסרה מבליעל ות֯ש]וב‬ ‫[]‬ ‫תוב עליו] אומר לצי[ון מלך אלוהיך ]צי[ון ה]יאה‬ ‫[במשפט]י[ אל כאשר כ ̇‬ ‫]]‬ ‫ה ̇ואה‬ ‫]עדת כול בני הצדק המה [מקימ]י[ הברית הסרים מל ̇כת ]בד[֯ר֯ך העם ואל]ו[הי ̇ך ̇‬ ‫מלכי צדק אשר יצי[ל]מה מי[ ̇ד בליעל ואשר אמר והעברתמה שו]פר ב[ ̇כ ̇ו ֯ל ]א[ ̇רץ‬ ‫]‬

‫‪Isa. :‬‬ ‫‪Lev. :‬‬

‫)?‪Isa. :(‐‬‬

‫‪Dan. :‬‬

‫)‪§ (:b – ‬‬ ‫‪Isa. :‬‬

‫‪Isa.:‬‬

‫)‪Isa : (Lev :‬‬ ‫‪Lev. :‬‬ ‫)‪§ (:b – a‬‬ ‫‪Isa. :‬‬ ‫‪Ps :, Ps : – ‬‬ ‫‪Ps :‬‬

‫)‪§ (: – a‬‬ ‫‪Lev :‬‬ ‫‪Deut :‬‬

‫‪Table 3.8: 11QMelchizedek Col. II‬‬

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis in Homilies, Gospels, Treatises, and Greco-Roman Letters καὶ δῆτα συνέρχονται μὲν αἰεὶ καὶ συνεδρεύουσι μετ’ ἀλλήλων· οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ σιωπῇ, πλὴν εἴ τι προσεπευφημῆσαι τοῖς ἀναγινωσκομένοις νομίζεται· τῶν ἱερέων δὲ τις ὁ παρὼν ἢ τῶν γερόντων εἷς ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱεροῦς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖται μέχρι σχεδὸν δείλης ὀψίας· κἀκ τοῦδε ἀπολύονται τῶν τε νόμων ἱερῶν ἐμπείρως ἔχοντες καὶ πολὺ δὴ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἐπιδεδωκότες. “[On the Sabbath the Jews] assemble and sit together, most of them in silence except when it is the practice to add something to signify approval of what is read. But some priest who is present or one of the elders reads the holy laws to them and expounds them point by point till about the late afternoon, when they depart having considerable advance in piety. ~Philo, Hypothetica 8.7.13

4.1 Introduction The earliest extant commentaries, products of ancient Mesopotamia, were composed in the context of the royal court and later preserved and elaborated in the scribal schools. This does not mean, however, that commentary as a function only took place within the commentary genre. Neither does it follow that the most relevant information on commentary forms will arise from the commentary tradition proper, particularly in antiquity where our evidence is limited. For instance, our understanding of the Akkadian term pišru, an important Mesopotamian predecessor to the Essene pesher, is not derived primarily from commentaries, but from a body of letters written to an Assyrian king. As Uri Gabbay explains: These letters are one reflection of a more general notion of pišru which happens to come up in the letters, but which surely also existed independently of them. In fact, these letters also provide us with the opportunity to see beyond the textual aspect of commentaries. The terminology used in the letters is the same as that used in the commentaries … and the methods and concerns found in them are also those found in commentaries.¹

Drawing support from Schironi, I suggested in the previous chapter that a similar situation adheres in the study of the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition. Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 finds a very close parallel not in another of his epistles but in the scholastic commentary tradition proper, particu-

 Gabbay, “Akkadian Commentaries,” 312.

4.1 Introduction

161

larly in Philo’s exegeses of secondary biblical texts. Having isolated this exegetical pattern, it will be important to see whether it occurs also in other non-scholastic genres. The first of these genres, about which we know something from Alexandrian sources, is the synagogue homily.² A common form in both early Judaism and Christianity, the homily would seem to present an ideal vehicle for the transmission of scholarly commentary patterns into popular literature and vice versa. Under this heading, I will consider texts from Hebrews, Acts, John, and two Pseudo-Philonic homilies.³

 The foundational studies for the identification of this genre include Hartwig Thyen, Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie (FRLANT 47; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955) and more recently Folker Siegert’s two volume translation and commentary of two Ps.-Philonic homilies, De Jona and De Sampsone, which Siegert argues provide a window into diasporan Jewish preaching in the first century C.E. See Folker Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, ‘Über Jona’, ‘Über Simson’ und ‘Über die Gottesbezeichnung, wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer’: Bd. I: Übersetzung aus dem Armenischen und sprachliche Erläuterung (WUNT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1980); and idem, Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten: Ps-Philon, ‘Über Jona’, ‘Über Jona’ (Fragment) und ‘Über Simson’: Bd. II, Kommentar nebst Beobachtungen zur hellenistischen Vorgeschichte der Bibelhermeneutik (WUNT 61; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992).  This list could be expanded. For this chapter, I have selected the most relevant examples on the basis of formal and chronological criteria. Other important witnesses to the various homiletic forms in antiquity include LXX Susanna; the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; 4 Maccabees; 2 Clement; the Easter homily of Melito of Sardis; the baptismal homily εἰς τὰ ἅγια θεοφάνεια attributed to Hippolytus; and, later still, the homilies of Origen. For scholarship on Susanna, see Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77 (1984): 277– 99, esp. 294, who argues that the entirety of the book is a homily, with Susanna 63 constituting a conclusion and exhortation, a thesis which was originally suggested by John Strugnell in a doctoral seminar at Harvard. If this is the case, Isa 11:2 suggests itself as a possible text. Alternatively, several scholars view Susanna as a “midrash” on (1) LXX Jer 36:21– 23 (see J. W. Wesselius, “The Literary Genre of the Story of Susanna and its Original Language,” in Variety of Forms: Dutch Studies in Midrash [ed. A. Kuyt, E. G. L. Schrijver, and N. A. van Uchelen; Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1990], 15 – 25), (2) Dan 1:1– 2 (see J. W. van Henten, “The Story of Susanna as a Pre-Rabbinic Midrash to Dan. 1:1– 2,” in Variety of Forms, 1– 14), or (3) Zech 5:5 – 11 (see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 430, n. 41. Yet another possibility is raised by Prof. Michael Segal (to whom I owe several of the bibliographical entries above) in a forthcoming collection of his essays on Daniel. Segal argues that Susanna is a homily on Isa 2:3, which is playfully paraphrased in an inverted form in Susanna 5b (the OG introduction of the book according to the Göttingen edition). For the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 294– 95, and John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000 [1984]), 179 – 83. For 4 Maccabees, 2 Clement, Melito of Sardis, (ps.‐)Hippolytus, and Origen, see the brief but helpful discussion by Folker Siegert, Drei Predigt-

162

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

The distinction between commentary and homily has been frequently challenged.⁴ Looking ahead to the second and third centuries, it is true that in the case of Origen’s exegetical treatises, it is not always easy to distinguish (school) commentary from spoken and stenographed homily.⁵ Likewise, in the case of the later Amoraic homiletic midrashim, such as Pesikta d’Rav Kahana, similar doubts arise as to whether the exegeses there anthologized are authentic records of synagogue petiḥot and other homiletic forms, whether they were generated as school exegeses by the Rabbis in the bêt midrash but never intended for public oration, or whether they are comprised of a mixture of both.⁶ Be that as it may, the studies of Hartwig Thyen, Folker Siegert, and Lawrence Wills, all cited above, provide a critical body of evidence arguing for the existence of a distinct homiletic form in the first and second centuries. As Harold Attridge recently suggested to the Hebrews group at the SBL, “a few articles” do in fact remain to be written on the distinction between homily and commentary in this period.⁷ Since both Hans Lietzmann and Joseph Fitzmyer suggest that 2 Cor

en II, 13 – 20. Siegert considers both 4 Maccabees and 2 Clement written diatribes, although many scholars have long considered the latter a “Lesepredigt.” Siegert considers Melito’s Quartodeciman Easter homily the first extant Christian sermon to have been delivered orally and transcribed in full.  Those who are skeptical about the possibility of defining or recognizing distinct homiletic forms in early Jewish and Christian literature include Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: Volume Two: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 273, and Karl Paul Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 26.  Origen’s exegetical writings are generally divided into three categories: commentaries, homilies, and scholia. For introduction and bibliography, see Herman J. Vogt, “Origen of Alexandria,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity (2 vols; ed. Charles Kannengiesser; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1:536 – 574. See especially the classic treatment by Pierre Nautin, “Origene predicateur,” in Homélies sur Jérémie (SC 232; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 100 – 191; as well as J. T. Lienhard, “Origen as Homilist,” in Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt (ed. D. Hunter; New York: Paulist, 1989), 36 – 52; and É. Juno, “Wodurch unterscheiden sich die Homilien des Origenes von seinen Kommentaren?” in Predigt in der Alten Kirche (ed. E. Mühlenberg and J. van Oost; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 50 – 81.  For a recent survey of positions on the Sitz im Leben of the homiletic midrashim, see Anisfeld, Raisin Cakes, 16. See also Joseph Heinemann, “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim: A Form Critical Study,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 100 – 22; and Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 15 – 16.  Harold A. Attridge, at the Hebrews Group, Monday, 21 November 2011, at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

163

3:7– 18 might have its origin as a Pauline homily, this species of Hellenistic commentary clearly merits a closer look.⁸ After completing this study of the homiletic tradition, I will then turn to several genres of non-commentary literature, in which commentary occurs as a prominent feature. These include a Jewish treatise (the Damascus Document) and one of Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. The aim of these comparisons is to provide evidence for the widespread occurrence of commentary as a function in an even wider range of literary genres and to set the stage for a discussion of the rhetorical shape of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6 in chapter five.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament 4.2.1 The Preaching of the Early Church If one is searching for comparanda to 2 Cor 3:7– 18 among early Christian homilies, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the speeches of the Acts of the Apostles readily suggest themselves. Both the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 13:22) and Paul’s speech in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15) are labeled λόγος (τῆς) παρακλήσεως (“word of exhortation”). The recurrence of this phrase in both works suggests that a comparison of Hebrews and the speeches in Acts might yield important information about the form, content, and exegetical patterns of early Christian homilies.⁹ In the following two sections, I will make a comparison of two homilies from these respective works, each of which interprets a psalm. Beginning with Heb 3:7– 4:10, which interprets LXX Ps 94:7d – 11, I will derive a sort of homiletic type—if you like, an exegetical ὑπόδειγμα—and use this as a lens for reading Peter’s interpretation of LXX Ps 15:8 – 11b in his Pentecost homily in Acts 2:25 – 36.¹⁰

 On the historical context of Paul’s homiletic and teaching activity, see Stowers, “Social Status,” 65 – 68.  For a recent discussion of this title, see Gabriella Gelardini, “Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights (ed. eadem; BIS 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 107– 127, esp. 115 – 116. For an attempt to create a typology for the homiletic genre in early Judaism and Christianity, see Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 278 – 280. For criticism of this view, see C. Clifton Black, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christianity Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills,” HTR 81 (1988): 1– 18; and Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 25, who notes that Wills’ threefold pattern does not correspond with the ps.-Philonic homilies De Jona and De Sampsone.  Harold Attridge’s judgment that Hebrews is a Christian homily remains convincing and represents the position of the majority. See Harold A. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Com-

164

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

In particular, I aim to show how both homilists (1) follow a sequential pattern of exegesis, as they treat a four-to-five verse pericope from the Psalms;¹¹ (2) introduce a secondary lemma toward the end of the homily that brings the discourse full circle and refocuses attention on the first line of the psalmic pericope; and (3) interpret their psalm in such a way that its speaker is both David and not David. This combination of formal and substantive features represents a homiletic type, one which is exemplified by the anonymous homilist of Hebrews, but which Luke has curtailed and stereotyped according to the conventions of Greco-Roman historiography. In the context of this study, these two examples also serve as primary witnesses to the presence of secondary-level exegesis outside the commentary proper.

4.2.2 Hebrews 3 – 4 as Exegetical Hypodeigma 4.2.2.1 The Sequential Exegetical Pattern The sequential nature of the homilist’s treatment of LXX Psalm 94 in Heb 3:7– 4:10 has often been overshadowed by the rather elaborate ring composition emerging at the homily’s end.¹² Despite this florid example of rhetorical inclusio (Heb 3:15; 4:7), the homily nonetheless proceeds primarily by interpreting the psalm in a linear fashion. It begins with a mid-length citation of LXX Ps 94:7d – 11 (Heb 3:7– 11). The subsequent exegesis (Heb 3:12– 4:11) clearly di-

mentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 14. For the recent attempt to further specify the liturgical dating of Hebrews, according to the Palestinian three-year lectionary cycle, as the ninth of Av, see Gelardini, “Ancient Synagogue Homily.” Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 16, is, for his part, skeptical of designating Hebrews a “homily” precisely on the grounds of its rhetorical polish and “Zitierwut.” However, his reserving the term “homily” for improvisational performance seems artificially rigid. Alternatively, Clare Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon (WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 176 – 78, has classified parts of Hebrews 3 – 4 as a collection of prophetic oracles.  For the importance and prominence of the Psalms in Hebrews more broadly, see Ina WilliPlein, “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, 27– 29; Elke Tönges, “The Epistle to the Hebrews as a ‘Jesus-Midrash,’” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, 93 – 96.  So Gert J. Steyn, “The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7– 11 in Hebrews 3 – 4,” in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (ed. D. J. Human and idem; New York: T & T Clark: 2010), 194– 228, esp. 215, where he paraphrases Attridge: “the train of thought develops in a circular fashion rather, [sic] than in a linear manner.” See Attridge, Hebrews, 124: “The train of thought in this whole midrash on Ps 95 does not progress in a simple linear fashion, but circularly….” Attridge, Hebrews, 114, 120, however, seems to recognize linear elements of the exegesis as well.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

165

vides into three subsections, which interpret LXX Ps 94:7d – 11 sequentially.¹³ The basic exegetical pattern of the homily is set out in Table 4.1 below. The boundaries of each of these sections of the homily are marked by a catchword repetition, παραπικρασμῷ (Heb 3:15) and παρεπίκραναν (Heb 3:16) joining the first and the second sections and the catchphrase μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ (Heb 3:18, 19) and μήποτε … εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ (Heb 4:1) linking the second and third. Table 4.1: Exegetical Pattern of Heb 3:12 – 4:11 (A) Heb : –  (B) Heb : –  (C) Heb : – 

LXX Ps :d –  LXX Ps : –  LXX Ps :b

The first section, (A) Heb 3:12– 15, interprets LXX Ps 94:7d – 8, explicitly echoing the psalm four times in a quasi-linear fashion.¹⁴ While these echoes do not occur precisely in the sequence of the psalm, neither is the psalm’s order entirely ignored. The cluster of terms, furthermore, focuses attention on the first two verses of the psalm, setting the tempo for further exegesis at a comfortable andante. The next section, (B) Heb 3:16 – 19, follows the structure of LXX Ps 94:8 – 11 very closely, echoing three of its verbal ideas in precisely the psalm’s sequence.¹⁵ These brief allusions, incorporated in a punctuated and pithy manner, give the passage a more staccato feel than the first section (A) and move the homily forward at a brisk allegro.  Following Albert Vanhoye, Le structure litteraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Stud Neot 1; Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1976 [1963]), 95 – 101, Attridge, Hebrews, 114, subdivides the homily into three slightly different sections. These divisions (3:12– 19; 4:1– 5; 4:6 – 11) do not essentially conflict with mine. My division of Vanhoye’s first section into two in fact derives from Attridge’s observation that the citation in Heb 3:15 “is rather to be construed with what precedes [than with what follows], perhaps with a particular phrase in vss 13 or 14, or more likely with the whole exhortation” (Hebrews, 119 – 20). The formal unity of 3:16 – 19, a series of three questions employing primarily the 3 cpl rather than the 2 cpl (predominant in [A]), also distinguishes this section as an independent unit. Between 3:15 and 3:16, then, I posit a kind of minor caesura, which Attridge hinted at but did not go so far as suggesting. For a similar subdivision of Attridge’s first section, see Steyn, “Reception,” 216 – 17. I fully accept the division of Heb 4:1– 11 into two subsections; however, the presence of Gen 2:2 as an interpretative lens in both halves of this section (4:4, 10) lends a unity to its exposition which I have respected in treating it as a unit.  τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν (LXX Ps 94:8a); κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν (LXX Ps 94:8b); σήμερον (LXX Ps 94:7d); μὴ σκληρύνητε (LXX Ps 94:8a).  παραπικρασμῷ (LXX Ps 94:8; cf. Heb 3:16); τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη … προσώχθισα (LXX Ps 94:10; cf. Heb 3:17); ὤμοσα … εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου (LXX Ps 94:11; cf. Heb 3:18,19).

166

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

The homily’s rising momentum in the first two sections then suddenly slows to a reflective, “restful” adagio in the third. While (C) Heb 4:1– 11 echoes the themes of lack of faith and trust from the previous section,¹⁶ the anonymous homilist meditates here primarily on a single line of scripture, LXX Ps 94:11b (εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου), over the space of eleven verses.¹⁷

4.2.2.2 The Circular Ending This straightforward, linear pattern of exegesis is complicated by the homilist in the final section (C) by a circular return to the beginning of the psalm pericope. There, in Heb 4:7, the homilist reintroduces LXX Ps 94:7d – 8a at the end of the section interpreting LXX Ps 94:11 (Heb 4:3). Hebrews thus concludes an otherwise monophonic homily with a decidedly polyphonic flourish. To accomplish this, the homilist first links LXX Ps 94:11 with Gen 2:2, his secondary lemma, by way of the shared compound Greek root καταπαυ–. He then subsequently enchains Gen 2:2 to LXX Ps 94:7d – 8 through the theme of a day (ἡμέραν, σήμερον).¹⁸ This circularity provides not only a rhetorical marker of the end of the unit, but reveals that the rest which was “lost” by the wilderness generation is in reality still attainable in God’s perpetual σήμερον, the eschatological Sabbath. In its literary form, then, Heb 3:7– 4:11 clearly includes a circular element. Its primary exegetical directionality, however, remains linear. Moreover, as Gert Steyn has observed, the demarcation of the cited psalmic pericope is not arbitrary but comprises an important part of this pattern: the first and the last lines of the pericope supply key themes of the sermon (today, rest),¹⁹ which are woven together by a rhetorical inclusio.

 ἀπειθήσασιν, ἀπιστίαν: [B] Heb 3:18, 19; see [C] Heb 4:2, 6, 11.  Attridge’s suggestion (Hebrews, 123) of a minor caesura between Heb 4:5 and 4:6 is acceptable on the grounds of the inclusio in Heb 4:6, 11, the reintroduction of the transitional particle οὖν (Heb 4:1, 6), and the internal repetition of the verb ἀπολείπεται (Heb 4:6, 9). However, he also notes that “the two segments are intimately related since they provide a unified development of the theme,” in particular, the interpretation of LXX Ps 94:11b through the exegetical lens of Gen 2:2 (Heb 4:4, 10).  Pace Gelardini, “Ancient Synagogue Homily,” 120, who suggests that Hebrews 4:4 “does not quote Gen 2:2 but Exod 31:17b.”  See Steyn, “Reception,” 223 – 24: “It is thus noteworthy that the author’s delimitation of the quoted section, i.e. the beginning and end of the section that he quotes, is probably chosen on the basis of the fact that it starts with σήμερον (Ps 94:7) and ends with κατάπαυσιν (Ps 94:11).”

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

167

4.2.2.3 The Complex Scriptural Speaker: David and the Holy Spirit This complex homiletic pattern of exegesis, at once linear and circular, is coupled by the homilist with a similarly complex scriptural speaker: he is both David and not David. Heb 3:7, in fact, states quite clearly that the Holy Spirit speaks the psalm in the homiletic present. David only enters the scene as the historical speaker much later in Heb 4:7, in the homilist’s circular return to LXX Ps 94:7: πάλιν τινὰ ὁρίζει ἡμέραν, σήμερον, ἐν Δαυίδ λέγων μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον, καθὼς προείρηται … Again he appoints a certain day—today—speaking through David after so much time, as it was said beforehand …

While God or the Holy Spirit remains the grammatical subject of the participle, the temporal reference “after so much time” clearly indicates that the historical David, who prophesied long after the wilderness generation, has come into view. The homilist’s historicization of the psalm’s speaker becomes clearer in his reference to Joshua (Heb 4:8), whose historical entry into the Land provides the temporal referent against which David’s “after” can be measured.²⁰

4.2.3 Homilies in Acts At the outset of this chapter, I suggested that this pattern and type of psalmic exegesis in the Epistle to the Hebrews, just outlined above, has an important counterpart in Peter’s Pentecost speech in Acts 2. Because Luke-Acts is not a homily, however, before proceeding to this structural analysis, I will address the question of homiletic patterns in Luke-Acts more generally, beginning with the studies of scriptural exegesis in Acts by John Westerdale Bowker and E. Earle Ellis from the late 1960s and early 1970s. Bowker and Ellis argue that certain speeches in Acts (regardless of their Lucan setting) conform to various patterns found in rabbinic homilies or the exegetical texts discovered in the Judean desert. Bowker championed Acts 13:16 – 41 (Pisidian Antioch) as showing “certain clear indications of the proem homily

 The verb προείρηται includes a temporal aspect as well, although many understand it as simply referring back to the initial citation of the Psalm in Heb 3:7– 8 (so, e. g., NRSV). It is not impossible, however, to read the verb as referring [also?] to David’s historical speaking of the Psalm at a time prior to the Spirit’s fulfillment of its promise in the homilist’s Christological “today.”

168

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

form,”²¹ but also considered Acts 2:21– 26(39), 3:12– 26, and 7:1– 53 as additional examples of the same pattern.²² Ellis, in contrast, drawing on research on the Qumran documents, identified the existence of a “pesher technique” in specific subsections of the speeches in Acts 2 and 13.²³ Both studies highlight Peter’s speech in Acts 2 as potentially stemming from a homiletic tradition. To be sure, certain aspects of Bowker’s and Ellis’s theories have justly been criticized. So, Martin Rese observes “wie sehr der Boden schwankt, auf dem Bowker und Ellis ihre Gebäude errichtet haben.”²⁴ Rese points especially to Bowker’s fundamental reliance on outdated scholarship on the synagogue liturgy,²⁵ and is also rightly critical of Ellis for his seemingly facile identification of Luke’s “sequential exegesis” with the Qumran pesher technique, including its particular eschatological outlook.²⁶ Furthermore, drawing on the imperative of Käsemann and his disciples, Rese emphasizes the theological role of the speeches in the salvation history of Luke-Acts rather than limiting his view to tradition history.²⁷ In this regard, Rese has argued for a close connection between Peter’s Speech in Acts 2 and Luke’s theological interpretation of the crucifixion in his Gospel.²⁸ Additionally, critical consensus holds that the speeches in the Acts of the Apostles remain largely works composed by Luke.²⁹ Scholars vary in their under John W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” NTS 14 (1967/68): 96 – 111, esp. 104.  For a concise summary of Bowker’s argument, along with the Sedarim, Hafṭarot, and Proemtexts that he identified for each of these five homilies, see Martin Rese, “Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, Redaction, Théologie (ed. J. Kremer et al; BETL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), 61– 79, esp. 64– 5 and note 12.  E. Earle Ellis, “Midraschartige Züge in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 62 (1971): 94– 104, esp. 97– 101. The article is an expanded version of idem, “Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts,” in Mélanges bibliques en homage au R. P. Béda Rigaux, (ed. A. Descamps and R. P. A. de Halleux; [Gembloux] Duculot: 1970), 303 – 12.  Rese, “Funktion,” 67; see also Ibid., 68.  Ibid. Rese points especially to Bowker’s dependence on J. Mann’s “daring hypothesis” regarding Synagogue liturgy, which Ben Zion Wachholder considered “essentially faulty” in certain key respects. See Ben Zion Wachholder, Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography (New York: Ktav, 1976), 137– 76.  Rese, “Funktion,” 73 – 74, with regard to Acts 2:24– 31: “Allein der formalisierte Hinweis auf die Wiederholung ist noch kein Beweis!”  Rese, “Funktion,” 68 – 72.  Rese, “Funktion,” 74.  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of The Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 105: “In the form in which we have the speeches of Acts they are clearly Lucan compositions.”

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

169

standing of Luke’s rationale in creating these speeches. Early on, many scholars pointed to Greek historiographical practice as the precedent for Luke’s redactional activity. Thucydides’ principle that historians could create speeches recounting “what was necessary to be said” (τὰ δέοντα μάλιστ’ εἰπεῖν) by a certain character in a given historical circumstance (Hist. 1.22.1) provided Luke with a warrant for this practice. The judgment of George Kennedy, however, that “Luke has exercised considerable restraint in literary elaboration of speeches; those in classical historians are generally much longer,” suggests that these speeches were not composed simply by following the Thucydidean principle.³⁰ An alternative historiographical precedent has been proposed by Gregory Sterling. In a recent pair of articles, Sterling argues that Luke’s speeches in Acts 7 and 13 draw on “a tradition of Hellenistic Jewish historiography that contended for the legitimation of communities in the diaspora.” Among these historians stand such figures as Cleodemus Malchus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and Artapanus.³¹ All these caveats, however, cannot completely rule out Luke’s use of sources, including homiletic ones. Neither should they devalue the important instinct of both Bowker and Ellis to pay attention to the forms of scriptural exegesis in the speeches of Acts. Even if one brackets the source-critical question, it is still reasonable to ask whether Luke himself had knowledge of early homiletic patterns. Luke, as a historian and collector of accounts (Luke 1:1– 4), is familiar with a striking range of Jewish traditions and exegetical methods. For example, Tzvi Novick has recently argued that Peter’s tandem citation of Psalm 68:26 and 108:8 in Acts 1:20 is an early, if compressed, precursor to the later Rabbinic middah, shnei kethubim. ³² Likewise, when one peruses the twenty-five speeches of Acts of four verses or longer, as defined by Kennedy,³³ one does find examples of sequential exegesis of OT pericopes which might bear a distant relation to

 See George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 114.  Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Do You Understand What You are Reading?’: The Understanding of the LXX in Luke-Acts,” in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie (ed. Jörg Frey, Clare Rothschild, and Jens Schröter; BZNW 162; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 101– 18; idem, “Opening the Scriptures: The Legitimacy of the Jewish Diaspora and the Early Christian Mission,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (ed. David P. Moessner; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 1999), 199 – 225.  M. Tzvi Novick, “Succeeding Judas: Exegesis in Acts 1:15 – 26,” JBL 129 (2010): 795 – 99.  Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 116 – 139. Criteria for enumerating speeches, of course, differ. Perhaps the lowest is the count of G. H. R. Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts”, NTS 32 (1986): 609 – 14, esp. 610 – 11, who finds only 10 major “set speeches.” Fitzmyer, Acts, 104, finds 28 and Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 162– 183, has ca. 35.

170

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

the pattern in Hebrews 3 – 4. The threefold type of homiletic exegesis discerned in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus offers a promising heuristic paradigm through which to approach the exegetical speeches in Acts.

4.2.4 Acts 2: The Paradigm in Miniature To illustrate this point, I will examine Luke’s exegesis of LXX Ps 15:8 – 11b in Peter’s Pentecost speech in Jerusalem. As in the Hebrews paradigm, one finds here, first of all, a citation of a mid-length pericope from the Psalms (LXX Ps 15:8 – 11b) followed by a Christological interpretation of these verses in Acts 2:29 – 36. I will treat this psalmic sermon as a relatively independent exegetical unit, leaving open for the time being the exact relationship of these verses and their exposition to Peter’s primary lemma in the speech, Joel 3:1– 5 (Acts 2:17– 24).

4.2.4.1 The Sequential Exegetical Pattern Like the anonymous author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Luke also follows a sequential pattern of exegesis in his interpretation of LXX Psalm 15, albeit in a more compressed and abbreviated way. To anticipate the conclusions of this section, I present the outline in Table 4.2 below. Table 4.2: Exegetical Pattern of Acts 2:31 – 35 Acts Acts Acts Acts

:a :bc : : – 

LXX Ps : LXX Ps : LXX Ps :c Secondary lemma (LXX Ps :) echoing LXX Ps :

Peter’s linear pattern of exegesis of the psalm in his homily was already noted by Earle Ellis: “In Act 225–28 (Ps 168–11) werden die Worte δεξιός (25.33 ff.), ᾅδης (27.31), σάρξ (26.31), ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν (27.31) ähnlich in der Auslegung wiederholt.”³⁴ Ellis grasps the core elements that Peter has borrowed to interpret the psalm as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:24, 32) and ascension (Acts 2:33). However, he does not wrestle with the text carefully enough and his reading can be improved upon in several important ways, which clarify Peter’s linear pattern. In the first place, Ellis omits several important elements from the psalm which are echoed in Peter’s homily. Thus, it is not only ᾅδης which is echoed  Ellis, “Midraschartige Züge,” 98.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

171

in Acts 2:31, but εἰς ᾅδην as well as the negated verb ἐγκαταλείπειν (Acts 2:27, 31). These by themselves are not crucial omissions. Of greater moment is Ellis’s failure to recognize in the participle προϊδών (Acts 2:31) a reference to the very first verb of the cited pericope, προορώμην (LXX Ps 15:8 = Acts 2:25). So critical is Luke’s echo of David’s “I saw before me,” that Richard Pervo argues that the verb “provides, as it were, the theological justification for the passage.”³⁵ Adding προϊδών to the list of Peter’s echoes of the Psalm lends a clearly linear dimension to his exegesis in Acts 2:31; he begins with LXX Ps 15:8 and then turns to Ps 15:10 for the majority of his Christological content. While the foregoing observations bring the exegetical pattern of Acts 2:29 – 36 closer “into line” with the linear aspect of Heb 3:12– 4:10, two important problems remain. First, the occurrence of δεξιός in Acts 2:33, if indeed it is borrowed from LXX Ps 15:8b, seems to violate the sequential pattern of exegesis that Ellis is trying to demonstrate. Second, unlike the pattern found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where both the first word and final verse of the pericope provided crucial content for the homily, the final verse cited by Peter, LXX Ps 15:11, receives no explicit interpretation. Let us turn first to the non-sequential placement of δεξιός (Acts 2:33), which follows the three elements in Acts 2:31 taken from LXX Ps 15:9 – 10 instead of preceding them. This problem can be partially resolved by recalling Bowker’s insight to look beyond this particular pericope to the structure of Peter’s entire speech. Bowker likened the homily to a rabbinic petiḥot, in which a series of scriptural verses are strung together on the basis of shared words (Stichwörterverbindung).³⁶ While Bowker’s generic classification may be suspect, the three citations in Peter’s speech (LXX Joel 3:1– 5a, LXX Ps 15:8 – 11b, and LXX Ps 109:1) are nonetheless linked, however superficially, through the word κύριος (Acts 2:21, 25, 34).³⁷ The two psalmic quotations share a more natural exegetical link in that their opening verses involve the phrase ἐκ δεξιῶν μου (Acts 2:25, 34), the only two occurrences of this phrase in the Greek psalter.³⁸ These two psalmic quotations are related, furthermore, to two specific “Davidic problems,” which take  Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 74, n. 3.  So Ellis, “Midraschartige Züge,” 96, in his summary of Bowker, “Speeches in Acts.”  Moreover, Peter’s use of the verb ἐξέχεεν in Acts 2:33 (> ἐκχέω, Acts 2:17, 18) represents a Christological interpretation of Joel 3:1– 2 and demonstrates that Luke has not entirely lost track of Peter’s primary lemma (Joel 3:1– 5), however much he has turned to engage the psalms.  David P. Moessner, “Luke’s ‘Plan of God’ from the Greek Psalter: The Rhetorical Thrust of the ‘Prophets and the Psalms’ in Peter’s Speech at Pentecost,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay (ed. P. Gray and G. R. O’Day; NovTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 223 – 238, esp. 230, notes that these are the only two psalms in which the phrase “my Lord” appears.

172

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

as their starting place the fact that David is the speaker of the psalm.³⁹ LXX Psalm 15 poses the problem: “But David’s flesh saw corruption” (Acts 2:29; cf. Acts 13:36); LXX Psalm 109 poses the problem: “But David did not ascend to heaven” (Acts 2:34). A basic twofold structure to the sermon thus emerges, in which Jesus, through his resurrection, is recognized as “Messiah” (Acts 2:31) and through his ascension receives the title “Lord” (Acts 2:34).⁴⁰ Given the two psalm pericopes as they stand, τῇ δεξιᾷ … τοῦ θεοῦ of Acts 2:33 can only refer to the subsequent citation of LXX Ps 109:1, where the right hand is clearly the right hand of God rather than the right hand of the speaker (i. e. David or Christ).⁴¹ Thus, Acts 2:33 looks proleptically forward to LXX Ps 109:1 and the ascension, rather than backward on LXX Ps 15:8b and the proof of Christ’s resurrection.⁴² This argument helps to alleviate one tension in Peter’s homily raised by Ellis, namely, the non-sequential echo of δεξιός in Acts 2:33. But what of its occurrence here as a feminine singular substantive that cannot be explained by the plurals of LXX Ps 15:8b (Acts 2:25) or LXX Ps 109:1a (Acts 2:34)? Moreover, what of our second problem, the fact that LXX Ps 15:11ab are not explicitly echoed in the homily?⁴³ Several answers to these questions are possible. With regard to the first, Joseph Fitzmyer would explain Acts 2:33 here as an echo of LXX Ps 117:16a, δεξιὰ κυρίου ὕψωσέν με.⁴⁴ Given the lexical and syntactical similarities between this verse and Acts 2:33 (τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς), it seems quite likely that Luke drew on a stereotyped psalmic expression. But that does not in itself account for the sudden occurrence of the singular here. If Luke thinks of the phrase in Ps 117:16, what has turned his attention to the singular?

 So Rese, “Funktion,” 75; see also Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (7th ed.; KEK 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1977 [1956]), 184. For more on the Davidic speaker, see below.  See Acts 2:36 where both titles are repeated in inverted order, lending the homily a chiastic form (ABBA). For a similar Christology, see Phil 2:9 – 11.  It is worth noting that even when the exalted Christ is considered the speaker of LXX Ps 15:8, if the verse is taken of Christ’s exalted status, then the Lord is at Christ’s right and Christ is seated at the Lord’s left.  LXX Ps 109:1 looks to have exerted some “backward” influence even earlier in Acts 2:30 (καθίσαι), which, again looking ahead to the ascension, reflects at least in its preposition the psalmic imperative κάθου in Acts 2:34.  Moessner, “Peter’s Speech,” 223 – 224: “Commentators have had the most difficulty in explaining why Luke would quote nine lines of Ps 15 only apparently to find, in two of them, one rather cryptic nugget allegedly predicting the resurrection from the dead of David’s future offspring and χριστός.”  Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, 259.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

173

The second question is likewise vexing: why has Luke ended Peter’s citation of LXX Ps 15:11b where he has, omitting the final stich? Marion Soards has attempted to explain this oddity by arguing that the introduction of the new theme of Christ’s exaltation in Acts 2:32– 33 “may … be an interpretation of the last portion of v. 28, πληρώσεις με εὐφροσύνης μετὰ τοῦ προσώπου σου (‘you will make me full of gladness with your presence’).”⁴⁵ However, there is nothing in these lines from Acts quoted by Soards which explicitly points to the exaltation, nor to the peculiar language of Acts 2:33. On the one hand, one must grant the possibility that the exegetical pattern in Peter’s speech simply does not display the same depth and elegance as the pattern in Hebrews—indeed, that seems certainly to be the case at least in part, given the generic limitations of Luke’s work and the general consensus that Hebrews contains some of the most rhetorically sophisticated prose in the New Testament. However, while it is clearly within the ancient exegete’s freedom to modulate between singulars and plurals, Luke’s exegetical linkage of the two occurrences of δεξιῶν (Acts 2:25, 34) in LXX Psalms 15 and 109 makes his shift to the singular in Acts 2:33 stand out. Furthermore, the seemingly superfluous ending of the citation with Ps 15:11 remains puzzling and stands out as a rough edge amid Luke’s otherwise evenly sanded composition. As C. K. Barrett notes, LXX Ps 15:11 “does not add substantially to the argument and does not appear when the Psalm is used in the Acts of Philip.”⁴⁶ While we may simply have to accept such unevenness as a casualty of Lucan historiographical speechwriting, in this case, careful attention to the full text of LXX Psalm 15 does suggest an alternative answer, one which settles both of the questions simultaneously. As noted above, Luke cites LXX Ps 15:8 – 11b. In LXX Ps 15:11c, however, the last verse of the psalm, we find precisely the word we are looking for, δεξιᾷ in the dative singular. The verse reads: τερπνότητες ἐν

 Soards, Speeches in Acts, 36.  C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 146; see Acts Phil. 78. There are, of course, various other solutions to this problem other than the one which I am posing. For instance, (1) Moessner supposes that each of the three biblical citations in Acts 2 presents a kind of synecdoche of the “Plan of God,” one which invites readers, in the spirit of Luke 24:44, to consider the broader context of both LXX Psalm 15 and 109. Alternatively, (2) the thematic similarity between ἐνώπιον μου (Acts 2:25) and μετὰ προσώπου σου (Acts 2:28) might have induced the homilist to omit the final stich out of poetic consideration. However, the Psalm as it stands in the LXX and MT versions contains a similar and in fact stronger inclusio in the common reference to the “right hand.” The homily in Acts might also reflect (3) an alternative version of LXX Psalm 15, which did not include LXX Ps 15:11c; however, neither the MT, the LXX, nor the Qumran scrolls can support such a hypothesis (no copies of the end of the psalm from Qumran survive).

174

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

τῇ δεξιᾷ σου εἰς τέλος, “ delights in your right hand to the end.” Here, importantly, the right hand is no longer the right hand of the speaker (David, Christ) of LXX Ps 15:8, but the right hand of the Lord. Even more interestingly, τῇ δεξιᾷ occurs in Acts 2:33 not merely as a faint echo of the anarthrous nominative feminine singular found in Fitzmyer’s proposed LXX Ps 117:16a (δεξιὰ κυρίου ὕψωσέν με), but rather in the articular dative singular, precisely the form found in LXX Ps 15:11c. Thus I suggest, as an alternative to the aesthetic problem of Luke’s seemingly superfluous inclusion of LXX Ps 15:11ab and of the dative singular τῇ δεξιᾷ, that LXX Ps 15:8 – 11c in its entirety provides the lemma underlying Peter’s homily in Acts 2:29 – 36.⁴⁷ Let us return now to the question of Luke’s pattern of exegesis. With the addition of these two references to LXX Ps 15:8 and Ps 15:11c, it appears that Acts 2:29 – 36 treats not just one and a half verses of the psalm, but almost the entire pericope. Even if one does not accept my suggestion about Ps 15:11c, the mere addition of LXX Ps 15:8a yields a linear pattern of exegesis that is set out below in Table 4.3 below. Of course, ἡ σάρξ still remains slightly out of sequence.⁴⁸ However, despite this minor transposition, Peter’s Christological interpretation of LXX Ps 15:8 – 11 (Acts 2:25 – 27) in Acts 2:31, 33 faithfully follows the sequence of the scriptural text. Like the homiletic pattern in Hebrews 3 – 4, Peter here comments on both the initial and final verses of a psalm pericope.

 The theory of the dependence of Acts 2:33 on LXX Ps 15:11c finds support, among other places, in the study of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of The Old Testament Quotations (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1973 [1961]), 39, 42. Curiously, many scholars do note the connection between Ps 15:8b, 11c, but fail to discuss it. So, for instance, Moessner, “Peter’s Speech,” 231– 232, links LXX Ps 15:11c with the other “right hand” sayings in the Psalms, but fails to discuss Luke’s omission of the verse or their relation to Acts 2:33.  Luke (or his homiletic source) has clearly made this transposition for theological reasons. Luke probably wanted to complement or downplay the psychic element of resurrection (soul in Hades), which is clear in the Psalm, and emphasize instead the physical dimension of the resurrection through omitting ψυχή in his comment and drawing a closer connection between σάρξ [flesh] and διαφθορά [destruction]. Pervo, Acts, 83, notes that “the exegesis presumes resurrection of the flesh and is therefore not a residue of the primitive Christian message.” However, his argument from silence in other early Christian writings (see ibid. note 80) is hardly sufficient to make the case; the phraseology might as easily have been borrowed by a Christian homilist (at a pre-Lucan stage) from Jewish exegesis or derived ad hoc from the psalm. For a discussion of Luke’s use of an early source, see Barrett, Acts, 131– 133.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

175

Table 4.3: Synopsis of Acts 2:31, 33a and LXX Ps 15:8 – 11 Acts :b; c – ; (= LXX Psalm :a; c – ) Acts :, a b

προορώμην τὸν κύριον ἐνώπιόν μου διὰ παντός,

… ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι a ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, b οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν. …



προϊδὼν ἐλάλησεν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ

c

ὅτι οὔτε κατελείφθη εἰς ᾅδην οὔτε ἡ σάρξ αὐτοῦ εἶδεν διαφθοράν. …  τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς

4.2.4.2 The Circular Ending The second feature of the exegetical pattern in Hebrews is the circular ending, created by the introduction of a secondary lemma. This feature, while again not as pronounced in Acts, also appears in Peter’s Pentecost homily. The secondary lemma is LXX Ps 109:1 (Acts 2:34b – 35). While not as scripturally complex as the play in Heb 4:3 – 7, the way that LXX Ps 109:1 echoes the beginning (rather than the end) of LXX Ps 15:8 – 11 brings the homily full circle and draws a theological connection between the themes of resurrection and ascension.⁴⁹ Furthermore, Peter’s claim of the certainty of this twofold proclamation at the end of his homily in Acts 2:36 (ἀσφαλῶς; cf. Luke 1:4), following immediately upon the secondary lemma, thematically echoes the assurance of the prophetic speaker at the beginning of Ps 15:8 (ἵνα μὴ σαλευθῶ: Acts 2:25).

4.2.4.3 The Complex Scriptural Speaker: David and Christ In considering the speaker of LXX Ps 15:8 in Acts, I turn to a third point of continuity between these two homilies on the Psalms: the supposition of a complex scriptural speaker. I argued above that in Hebrews, the psalm is presented as spoken by both David and the Holy Spirit. Here, in Peter’s homily, the psalmic speaker is both David and Jesus. This time, however, David’s role as historical speaker is emphatically stated (Acts 2:25). Peter suggests Jesus’ identity as the speaker of LXX Ps 15:8 – 11 more subtly in Acts 2:31, which implicitly links

 Moessner, “Peter’s Speech,” 229, likewise identifies a circular shape to the homily, although he sees Acts 2:29 – 36 as referring all the way back to the promised “Spirit” of Joel.

176

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Jesus’ own experience to the first person pronoun of Psalm 15:10a, “for you did not abandon my soul to Hades” (emphasis added).⁵⁰

4.2.4.4 Toward Identifying a Homiletic Type Despite the differences in genre, these homilies in Luke-Acts and Hebrews exhibit a surprisingly unified type. Each homily interprets a psalmic pericope of three to five verses. The primary pattern of exegesis is linear, though each also possesses a circular ending, accompanied by the introduction of a secondary lemma. Finally, both homilists posit a complex psalmic speaker, one who is both the historical David and a divine eschatological figure, either the Holy Spirit or the ascended Christ. A major contribution of this study is to suggest that LXX Ps 15:11c stands behind Peter’s homily in Acts 2:33. Just why Luke has omitted LXX Ps 15:11c from his citation remains a puzzle. Eric Franklin argues that Luke wants to preserve a clear distinction between his prooftexts for the resurrection and the ascension (LXX Psalm 15 and 109, respectively).⁵¹ The fact that the interpretation found in Acts 2:33 still bears traces of LXX Ps 15:11c, however, may suggest that Luke has used and compressed a homiletic source here, one which originally used Ps 15:8 – 11 as a starting point to announce both the resurrection and ascension. Luke then modified this structure, adding a second psalmic text. Alternatively, and perhaps more plausibly, the exegetical connection between these two psalms could have been made in an earlier stage of the homily, which Luke then reworked and subordinated to the Joel pericope in the narrative context of Pentecost.⁵² In this vein, it is worth considering whether Acts 2:32– 33 might not themselves be a Lucan insertion. If the verses are removed, Acts 2:31 and 34 can be read continuously with little difficulty. The omission of Acts 2:33, which includes much characteristic Lucan vocabulary, dissolves the clearest verbal link between the psalmic homily and Joel, which is clearly a part of Luke’s composition. It also prevents us from having to conclude that Luke has sloppily

 Moessner, “Peter’s Speech,” 225, presumes that the speaker here is still David. However, on pp. 232– 33, he discusses the difficulty of identifying the speaker of the Psalms at any given point and admits the possibility of “overlapping voices.”  Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 33.  This latter position is represented by Barrett, Acts, 129: “At this point in the speech (v. 22) there is an abrupt change marked by a fresh address to the listeners. It seems clear that Luke, in the words he ascribes to Peter, is now following a different source; there is little connection between the two parts of the speech.”

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

177

omitted a verse from his pericope that was present in his homiletic source. Rather, Luke himself, thinking of the entire psalm in his redaction of the homily, introduces the echo of LXX Ps 15:11c in Acts 2:33. Finally, it is worth noting that the Lucan Paul cites an abbreviated pericope from the same psalm (LXX Ps 15:10b) in his homily in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:35).⁵³ Paul gives an appropriately curtailed exposition of the verse, focusing solely on the phrase ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν, which is repeated twice (Acts 13:36 – 37; cf. Acts 13:34, where the noun διαφθορά anticipates the citation in 13:35). Moreover, both homiletic passages follow roughly the same shape: they begin with the psalm quotation (Acts 2:25 – 28; 13:35), proceed with the recognition that David, although the speaker of the psalm’s promise, died (Acts 2:29; 13:36), and resolve the inherent tension with a Christological reading (Acts 2:30 – 32[33 – 36]; 13:37) relating the psalm to the resurrection, and in Peter’s case, to the ascension as well. These two versions of the same homily in Acts demonstrate Luke’s basic knowledge of the sequential pattern of OT commentary on a small scale (so Ellis). The pair of speeches also demonstrates, in confirmation of Rese, that Luke was a thoughtful theological historian, putting the same exegetical traditions in the mouths of Peter and Paul, while adapting them for their specific contexts. Against scholars like Rese and Pervo, however, this does not prove that Luke has composed this homily out of whole cloth.⁵⁴ Rather, the comparative length and complexity of the pattern in Peter’s homily supports the suggestion that Luke used a homiletic tradition in this instance. Whatever the tradition history, in considering Peter’s homily as a whole, one notes that only Acts 2:31, 33, and 34 – 35 (LXX Ps 109:1) show a particularly close connection to the language and sequence of LXX Psalm 15:8 – 11. Moreover, the majority of the Peter’s speech (Acts 2:14– 36; 38 – 39; 40b) is structured without such conscious control by the OT text.⁵⁵ Thus, while Peter’s speech in Acts 2 fol-

 This psalm is one of only two LXX citations to be interpreted in two different speeches in Acts. The other is Deut 18:15. For a complete list of citations in Luke’s speeches, see Rese, “Funktion,” 69.  Pace Pervo, Acts, 14, the judgment of Fitzmyer, Acts, 249, remains sound: “the pattern in the early speeches of Peter and that of Paul in Acts argues at least for something that Luke inherited and has worked into the speeches he has composed.” So Barrett, Acts, 129, quoted above.  Cf. Craig A. Evans, “The Prophetic Setting of the Pentecost Sermon,” in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 212– 224, esp. 216; revision of idem, ZNW 74 (1983): 148 – 50, who argues that “Peter’s sermon is laced throughout with language taken from the Greek version of Joel.” These echoes, however, apparently come from the entire book, and are not derived from Joel 3:1– 5a in sequence. This claim for a kind of prophetic color or echo in Peter’s speech is quite different than the claim for explicit, sequential exegetical allusion being advanced here. More-

178

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

lows a similar homiletic pattern of exegesis to that found in Hebrews 3 – 4, it does so in a highly compressed and stereotyped form, as it were, in miniature. The importance of the foregoing comparative study is three-fold. In the first place, it cautiously reopens the contested question of Luke’s sources in Acts. Second, it illuminates the similarities between the patterns of homiletic exegesis in Hebrews and Acts, thereby overcoming significant generic differences to rediscover a type of homiletic exegesis which shares certain formal and substantive features. This type, with its multiple attestation of sources and forms, is still a far cry from a typology of the homiletic genre; nonetheless, it should certainly be included in future attempts to define that genre (and its various species) through a catalogue of common formal and substantive features. Third, and most importantly, this study suggests that secondary-level exegesis of a mid-length scriptural pericope (a five-verse pericope in Hebrews, a fourverse pericope in Acts) was part and parcel of Christian homiletic practice in the first century. It is especially striking, in light of the conclusions of the previous chapter, that in both Peter’s and Paul’s speeches in Acts 2 and 13, LXX Psalm 15 functions as the lemma for a kind of secondary-level exegesis within a larger thematic or narrative frame. While these patterns do not exactly match Paul’s pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, particularly because of the explicit citation of a psalmic biblical lemma in each case, they nonetheless suggest that Paul’s pattern does resemble popular homiletic practice.

4.2.5 The Preaching of Jesus Thus far, the search for parallels to the pattern of exegesis found in 2 Corinthians 3 in early homilies has yielded partially positive results in the apostolic preaching of Hebrews and Acts. To gain a representative picture of homiletic commentaries in the New Testament, I turn now to investigate the traditions of Jesus’ preaching in the Gospels. Initially, this material may seem less promising, as Jesus’ message during his earthly ministry had an appreciably different context than the kerygma of the early church. Historical research suggests that Jesus, as best we can reconstruct him, most often preached not about himself, but about the Kingdom of God.⁵⁶ The kinds of developed narrative exegeses, such as we found in 2 Corinthians over, many of the echoes Evans detects occur in the frame narrative rather than in the speech itself.  See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; ABRL; 1991– 2009), 2:237– 506.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

179

3, Acts 2, and Hebrews 3 – 4, which reference Christ’s death, resurrection, and/or ascension, are characteristic of the post-Easter period and hence, not likely to find material parallels in Jesus’ message during his earthly ministry. Many of Jesus’ “sermons,” moreover, especially those in Matthew, are not extended exegeses of scriptural texts but rather redactional creations of the evangelists that recombine formerly unrelated blocks of traditional material.⁵⁷ All these objections, however, should be qualified. In the first place, the Gospels, although they are concerned with events in Jesus’ earthly ministry, were nonetheless composed by evangelists from a post-Easter vantage point. As such, they share more common ground with apostolic preaching than might initially seem to be the case. Second, whatever his historical message, the Jesus of the canonical Gospels does in fact preach about his own self-identity. Third and most importantly, there are two synagogue sermons of Jesus which engage, to differing degrees of complexity, a scriptural lemma. These homilies are found in Luke 4 (at Nazareth) and John 6 (at Capernaum). As was the case with Acts 2 and Hebrews 3 – 4, Luke 4, to a certain degree, stereotypes in miniature the kind of homily presented at length in John 6. Both homilies are framed by Jesus’ disputes with his Jewish audience (Luke 4:22, 28 – 30; John 6:30 – 31, 41– 42, 52) and both relate disbelief on the part of the congregation that Jesus, the son of Joseph,⁵⁸ could be who he claims to be, whether anointed prophet or the bread from heaven. The similarities between these homilies, however, stop there and thus it will not be necessary to offer a structural comparison as I did in the case of the early apostolic sermons. Rather, each exegetical pattern will be traced individually. Not only will this give us a chance to examine their relation to 2 Cor 3:7– 18, but it will provide further evidence of the phenomenon of secondary-level exegesis within a non-commentary genre: the Christian Gospel.

 So, e. g., Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 4– 5, rightly sees the “sermon” on the mount as “eine wunderliche Ansammlung von Brachylogien. Sie verrät übrigens ihren Sammelcharakter durch die Schlußnotiz Mt 7,28: ‘Als Jesus diese Worte (λόγους) beendet hatte …’ – Sollte es eine Rede sein, müßte stehen: τὸν λόγον τοῦτον oder τοιοῦτόν τινα λόγον. Es sind dbārim, mellē‘, kein λόγος, um es in antiken Begriffen auszudrücken.” This does not preclude, however, that some of these sayings or collections of sayings originated in a synagogue setting.  Cf. Luke 4:22: οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; and John 6:42: οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱος Ἰωσήφ;

180

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

4.2.6 Jesus the Anointed Prophet: Luke 4:16 – 30 Students of early Jewish liturgy and synagogue practice have long looked with interest at Luke’s Gospel, particularly at Jesus’ homily in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4:16 – 21), for clues about patterns of Sabbath worship in the Galilee. Luke’s description of Jesus opening the scroll of Isaiah has often been seen as evidence of an early unfixed or fixed hafṭarah cycle. Particularly striking in the context of this study is the fact that Jesus’ text, Isa 61:1– 2,⁵⁹ also served as a lemma underlying the exegesis in 11QMelchizedek, which I noted may have connections with the homiletic genre. The basic pattern of this homily is presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Exegetical Pattern of Luke 4:17 – 27 Luke : –  Luke : –  Luke : –  Luke : –  Luke : –  Luke :

Citation of primary lemma, LXX Isa : –  First homily on primary lemma Second homily on primary lemma Citation of parabolic material related to primary lemma Paraphrastic retelling of secondary lemma,  Reg :,  – ; : Paraphrastic retelling of secondary lemma,  Reg : – 

Unfortunately for the history of ancient exegesis, Jesus’ first exposition of LXX Isa 61:1– 2 (Luke 4:21b) in Nazareth is either calculatedly very short or gets cut off, for Jesus seems only to have begun to speak (Luke 4:21a) about his fulfillment of the words of the Isaiah scroll when murmuring breaks out about Jesus’ parents. Even if the idiom ἤρξατο λέγειν is not to be taken in a strictly ingressive sense, one can only lament that no more of the “words of grace proceeding from Jesus’ mouth” (Luke 4:22), which so impressed (or offended) the Naza-

 The lemma, as Luke cites it, differs from Joseph Ziegler’s Göttingen text in several ways: it omits the phrase ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ from LXX Isa 61:1, inserts a phrase from LXX Isa 58:6, and in the final quoted line, attests κηρύξαι rather than καλέσαι. These difference might be accounted for in various ways, including Luke’s dependence on a different version of the LXX, misquotation from memory, targumic practice, or a scribal/scholastic tradition which intertwined LXX Isa 61:2 and Isa 58:6 on the basis of their shared word, ἄφεσις. As a result of these textual differences, the final form of the Luke’s quotation possesses a clear parallelism between four infinitives (εὐαγγελίσασθαι : κηρύξαι :: ἀποστεῖλαι : κηρύξαι).

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

181

reth synagogue, were recorded by Luke’s source or reimagined at length by the evangelist.⁶⁰ Luke’s account of Jesus’ homily in Nazareth, however, does not end with the congregation’s initial consternation about his claim to be God’s anointed prophet. Aware of the crowd’s amazement, Jesus directly confronts them, not regarding his true father (cf. Luke 3:23) but regarding his messianic and prophetic status. Jesus begins by literally putting words in their mouths, citing a proverb (παραβολή) that he links to the congregation’s desire to see displays of rhetorical and healing power (cf. Luke 4:14– 15, 31– 32). He then responds to this imputed “request for a sign” by expounding the reason for his unwillingness to provide one on the basis of two prophetic exempla drawn from the Elijah and Elisha cycles of 1 and 2 Kings, before he is finally run out of town (Luke 4:29). Unlike Peter’s speech in Acts 2, Luke’s account of Jesus’ dispute with the synagogue congregation (Luke 4:22– 27) clearly does not involve a close exegesis of the cited scriptural lemma (Isa 61:1– 2). Jesus’ words in the Streitgespräch, however, may be seen to “comment” more loosely on several themes of Isa 61:1– 2, particularly the prophetic identity of the speaker and his spiritual mission to heal Israel. To begin at the end of Jesus’ second homily: the two exempla from the Deuteronomistic history (Luke 4:25 – 27) illustrate the truth of the proverb’s implied message (Luke 4:23), giving it a prophetic rather than naturalistic twist. The proverb itself (ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν) thus provides the “primary lemma” of Jesus’ sermon, to which the two scriptural exempla are subordinated.⁶¹ The proverb, for its part, both thematically and lexically echoes LXX Isa 61:1– 2.⁶² Thus the whole of Jesus’ second speech may be considered a kind of homily on Isaiah 61 framed within the dramatic context of a Gospel. This redactional technique will be illustrated even more clearly in the case of John 6.

 This is not to deny the powerful rhetorical effect of the brevity of Jesus’ homily as Luke presents it, which leads the reader back to the prophetic passage to unfold the meaning for him- or herself.  Throughout his two-volume history, Luke is fond of using non-scriptural proverbs as the pretext for Christian speeches and sermons. The most famous example of this is in Acts 17, when Paul gives a missionary speech, which takes as its “primary lemma” the Athenian inscription ᾿Aγνώστῳ θεῷ (Acts 17:23) and which concatenates, as secondary lemmata of sorts, a philosophical and poetic text (Acts 17:28a: ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν; Acts 17:28c, τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν), which are stitched together in part by homoteleuton (ἐσμέν) as well as their theological content.  The connection between Jesus’ proverbial ἰατρέ thematically repeats the healing task of the anointed messenger in LXX Isa 61:1 and intertextually echoes the verb ἰάσασθαι that Luke has omitted from his citation of this lemma.

182

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

If Luke 4:23 – 27 can be thus described as a second homily on Jesus’ primary text, and if the proverb of Luke 4:23 is viewed as a reiteration and interpretation of Jesus’ primary lemma (LXX Isa 61:1– 2), then it is worth looking briefly at Jesus’ interpretation of his secondary lemmata in the subsequent discourse. Jesus first alludes to the story of Elijah and the widow at Zarephath (Luke 4:25 – 26), offering an abbreviated paraphrase of a lengthy scriptural pericope (3 Reg 17:1, 7– 24, 18:1). Elijah’s ministry to the widow and her son exemplify both the miraculous and kerygmatic aspects of Jesus’ messianic and prophetic calling. Elijah’s ability to work miracles for an alien widow alongside his refusal to exercise this same power in Israel provides a parabolic answer to the critique being made against Jesus in the synagogue. Like Elijah, Jesus as prophetic physician could heal his own people, were they, like the widow of Zarephath (3 Reg 17:24), willing to recognize the power of Jesus’ word. Jesus’ second exemplum of a wonderworker who fails to do good works for Israel, the story of Elisha healing of the leper Naaman, again paraphrases a longer story from the Deuteronomistic history (4 Reg 5:1– 19). Jesus’ two expositions of secondary lemmata prove interesting in that they attest yet another pattern of homiletic scriptural exegesis. Jesus’ paraphrastic pattern is similar to that found in a variety of rewritten biblical texts, including Philo’s Exposition of the Law and the paraphrastic elements of 1 Cor 10:1– 13. Similar paraphrastic retellings of secondary lemmata also exist in the Ps.-Philonic homilies De Jona and De Sampsone. Luke does not, however, engage in a close, sequential interpretation of a scriptural pericope that echoes key themes from the lemma in its exegesis. As such, Jesus’ Nazareth homily in Luke does little to illuminate Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians. Several verses later, Luke tells us that Jesus taught again in the synagogue at Capernaum, and this time to better effect (Luke 4:31– 32, cf. 4:15; par. Mark 1:21). Unfortunately, neither Mark nor Luke tells us what Jesus preached there. To hear Jesus’ Capernaum homily and consider its exegetical pattern, I turn now to the fourth evangelist.

4.2.7 Jesus the Bread of Life: John 6:31 – 58 Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse (John 6:31– 58) follows a sustained exegetical pattern that is unique among early Christian Gospels. One might fairly call it the crowning exegetical achievement of this genre. Some key redactional and substantive similarities with Jesus’ Nazareth homily, such as the framing of the homily within a synagogue dispute and the questioning of the identity of Jesus’ father, have already been mentioned at the beginning of the previous section. Anticipating my analysis in this section, Jesus’ pattern of exegesis in the

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

183

Bread of Life discourse is laid out in Table 4.5 below. While this outline presents the basic contours of my analysis, the complexities of this instance of Johannine exegesis defy schematic characterization. I offer this outline as a skeleton placeholder to be enfleshed by the following analysis. The Bread of Life discourse is staged by the fourth evangelist in the Galilee (cf. Matt 4:23). He further specifies the town as Capernaum, and given the setting of the previous narrative of the miraculous feeding (6:1– 15) and other contextual clues, the reader is led to presume that the crowd finds Jesus outside in the open air and within eyeshot of the sea (πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, John 6:22, 25). Only after the discourse does the evangelist suggest a setting in the Capernaum synagogue (John 6:59): ταῦτα εἶπεν ἐν συναγωγῇ διδάσκων ἐν Καφαρναούμ.⁶³ Here, it would seem, we find the fourth evangelist’s “take” on the Synoptics’ missing sermon (Mark 1:21; par. Luke 4:31). Table 4.5: Exegetical Pattern of John 6:31 – 58 John : John : – b John : –  John : –  John : –  John : – b John :c –  John :c John :

John : – 

Primary lemma/paraphrase (LXX Exod :, ; LXX Ps :) Core homily on the John : Comment on ἔδωκεν (giving as incarnation) Comment on αὐτοῖς/ὑμῖν Comment on ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Comment on φαγεῖν as faith Eucharistic coda Comment on δώσω (giving as crucifixion) Recapitulation of scriptural paraphrase; Comment on δοῦναι (Eucharistic interpretation) Comment on αὐτοῖς/ἡμῖν Comment on φαγεῖν as Eucharistic

Peder Borgen, who identifies this passage as a homily in his magisterial monograph, Bread from Heaven, ⁶⁴ supports his conclusion by a careful comparison of its exegetical pattern and scriptural themes with similar “homiletic” passages in

 By comparing these two discourses in their settings, I do not mean to conclude their traditiohistorical similarity. Rather, I mean to demonstrate that both evangelists thought it worthy to set a major teaching discourse of Jesus near Capernaum, perhaps in the synagogue. Indeed, Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB 29ab; New York: Doubleday, 1966), 238, has rightly argued that the sixfold pattern found in John 6 of (1) miraculous feeding; (2) walking on the sea; (3) the request for a sign; (4) and a discourse on the bread; (5) confession of Peter; (6) passion theme; denial; finds a more precise parallel in the narrative of Mark 6:31– 54; 8:11– 33.  Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 28 – 58.

184

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and the early rabbinic midrash. While Borgen’s characterization of certain Philonic materials as homiletic remains debatable, his identification of the genre of John 6 has gained widespread acceptance.⁶⁵ One important advocate of his thesis is Raymond Brown, who adopted Borgen’s characterization in his Anchor Bible commentary, albeit with a few important modifications.⁶⁶ In a recent reassessment of John 6, Borgen himself has changed his tune, backing off the classification of the discourse as a “homily” and situating it instead more broadly within the context of zetematic literature, which (he argues), like Philo’s Quaestiones and the Allegorical Commentary, has its Sitz im Leben in the synagogue.⁶⁷ Borgen’s recent qualification, however, rests on the questionable assumption that Philo’s two most detailed commentary series were alike intended for a synagogue audience.⁶⁸ In my estimation, Borgen’s initial hypothesis, that John 6:31– 58 represents homiletic exegesis, is better. For the purposes of this study, the fact that John 6 exhibits sequential exegesis of a pericope in an epideictic mode is enough to warrant further consideration of its pattern of exegesis. Like Luke 4:17– 27, John 6:31– 58 begins by citing or paraphrasing an OT lemma. The homilist then, like Heb 3:7– 4:11, systematically interprets that lemma following a sustained, implicit exegetical pattern with both linear and circular literary contours. Two differences between this homily and the one in Hebrews immediately present themselves. In the first place, it is ambiguous which text—LXX Ps 77:24, LXX Exod 16:4, 15, or some targumic conflation of these verses—is actually quoted by the crowd in John 6:31.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, a lemma is cited.  See, e. g., Paul N. Anderson, “The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse and Its Evolving Context,” in Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. A. Culpepper; BIS 22; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1– 59, esp. 2.  Brown, Gospel, 277– 78.  Peder Borgen, “John 6: Tradition, Interpretation and Composition,” in Culpepper, Critical Readings, 100 – 101: “questions and answers, direct exegesis and problem-solving exegesis were part of the discourses in the Synagogue. All of these elements are found in rabbinic midrashim, as for example in Mekilta on Exodus, as well as in Philo’s commentaries.”  For the social context of Philo’s treatises, see Sterling, “The School of Sacred Laws,” 148 – 64, who argues for a private house of instruction as the setting for all three commentary series. Szekar Wan, “Philo’s Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim: A Synoptic Approach,” SBLSP 32 (1993): 22– 53, tentatively concludes a school setting for the Questions and Answers as well; Birnbaum, Place of Judaism, 19, argues that the Questions and Answers may have been intended for a larger Jewish audience than Philo’s school, serving “as a sourcebook or even a textbook for this broader Alexandrian Jewish community.”  So Brown, Gospel, 262: “The citation in John is not an exact rendering of any one OT passage.” For similarly condensed and citation pattern, see John 7:38.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

185

Second, while the homily may in fact have an entire pericope from Exodus 16 in mind, as Borgen suggests, John 6:31– 58 moves through the OT pericope much slower than Heb 3:7– 4:11, structuring all twenty seven verses around a singleverse primary “lemma” (found in John 6:31).

4.2.7.1 Explicit Johannine Controls Before revisiting Borgen’s exegetical analysis of John 6, we need to consider a more basic set of controls, namely, the literary framework of the Bread of Life discourse provided by the fourth evangelist himself. In addition to implicitly setting the lemma for interpretation (John 6:31), the fourth evangelist also explicitly divides Jesus’ discourse into three movements on the basis of three questions posed by Jesus’ interlocutors. These questions occur at (§1) John 6:30 – 31; (§2) John 6:41– 42; and (§3) John 6:53.⁷⁰ (§1.1) John 6:30 – 31 τί οὖν ποιεῖς σὺ σημεῖον, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν; τί ἐργάζῃ; οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον· ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν. The crowd’s first two questions set the basic text for the sermon. They ask for a sign, which is visible and produces belief. As an example of the kind of sign they are expecting, in John 6:31, the crowd offers a paraphrase resembling Psalm 77 (“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness”) followed by a scriptural citation formula (καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον) and a composite citation (ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν). The first section of the sermon, John 6:32– 40, proceeds to answer the two parts of this initial question of John 6:30 in sequence. In (§1.2) John 6:32 – 35, Jesus identifies his σημεῖον. The sign, “the bread which comes down from heaven,” gives life to the entire world, not just the fathers of Israel (John 6:33). Jesus himself is this bread (John 6:35), a more powerful sign than manna and also its true “signified.” (§1.3) John 3:36 – 40, by contrast, addresses the second part of the question (John 6:30, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν). Jesus, however, subverts this expectation: although the crowd expects a visible sign to convince them, Jesus says “you have seen but you do not believe” (John 6:36, ἑωράκατέ [με] καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε). John 6:37– 40 then explains this reversal in two different ways. (1) First, Jesus

 By dividing the discourse in terms of the frame dialogue and the biblical lemma, I accept and combine two possible ways of analyzing this passage. For a list of other possible analytic options, including a division in terms of “conceptual units” and “strophic construction,” see Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (3 vols.; trans. C. Hastings et al.; New York: Seabury, 1980 [= Das Johannesevangelium, 1971]), 2:31.

186

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

draws on a determinist doctrine: only those whom the Father gives to the Son will live forever (in John 6:39). (2) Second, Jesus highlights the centrality of vision and faith: only the one who truly sees (ὁ θεωρῶν) and believes (πιστεύων) in the Son will live forever (John 3:40). The structural similarity between John 6:39 and 6:40 suggests that these two solutions are meant to be coordinated with each other. It is important that the kind of seeing Jesus specifies in John 3:40 (θεωρῶν) denotes, in the philosophical tradition, not mere seeing (ἰδών), as in John 3:30, 36, which may remain superficial, but the deeper, sustained vision that perceives the spiritual or ideal significance of things. Jesus’ statement thus leaves open the possibility that those who do not yet see him as he is may, through further scrutiny, yet come to believe. Such seeing, however, ultimately hinges upon the Father’s will and gift. (§2.1) John 6:41– 42 Ἐγόγγυζον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ … οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, οὗ ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν ματέρα; πῶς νῦν λέγει ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβέβηκα; A second pair of questions is posed by a group of Jews, presumably a subset of the larger crowd, who do not think Jesus measures up to his own self-description. In particular, they have a problem with Jesus’ claim about his Father and his heavenly origin. As such, they fixate on one particular phrase from (§1) John 6:30 – 40, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, cited both in the pericope (John 6:31) and Jesus’ sermon (John 6:32bis, 33; cf. 6:38). In (§2.2) John 6:43 – 44, Jesus gives an initial answer to this question, relying again on the deterministic argument from John 6:39. Arguing with one another (John 6:41, 43) is pointless, because only those drawn by Jesus’ heavenly Father will see beyond his earthly foster-father Joseph. (§2.3) John 6:45 – 46 provides a supplementary argument. Jesus begins by offering LXX Isa 54:13 as a secondary lemma (John 6:45a; cf. Gal 4:27[!], 1 Thess 4:9), which ensures that “all” of the redeemed Israel will be taught by God. This, again, softens the deterministic argument of the foregoing verses. To be taught by God, however, is to be taught by Jesus’ Father, not through vision but through hearing (John 6:45b). For no one has seen the Father except the Son (John 6:46). (§2.4) John 6:47 – 51 Although this section seems to be an independent unit, it responds indirectly to the questions of John 6:41– 42 by interpreting the bread “from heaven” as the bread “of life,” reiterating Jesus’ interpretation latent in John 6:35. There may also be a tangential connection between the question about Jesus’ Father (John 6:42) and the fathers of Israel (John 6:49). John 6:49 clearly looks back to the initial paraphrase in John 6:31, “our fathers ate manna in the wilderness,” which Jesus proceeds to interpret by adding the phrase “and died.”

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

187

He himself is the bread of life (= “from heaven”) that the wilderness generation could not eat, but which is now eschatologically available. Here, Jesus appears to conclude the homily, coming back to the initial question and the scriptural paraphrase from which he departed. (§3.1) John 6:52 πῶς δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν σάρκα φαγεῖν; The fourth evangelist, however, is not done. Jesus must answer one more question, as the murmuring between Jewish factions becomes an all-out battle. The question apparently takes up Jesus’ immediately preceding statement, that “the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51b). (§3.2) John 6:53 – 58 The remainder of this section entails Jesus’ homily on the meaning of eating his flesh. In light of structural similarities between John 6:52– 58 and John 6:31– 50, some scholars have spoken of this latter pericope as a second homily or homiletic coda. In the final redacted Gospel, it is clearly of a piece with what precedes. In any event, in John 6:58, Jesus ends this “second homily” as he did the first, with a return to the paraphrase of John 6:31, echoing also his interpretation of it at John 6:49.

4.2.7.2 Implicit Scriptural Controls The preceding section demonstrates how the fourth evangelist structures Jesus’ homily explicitly on the basis of three sets of questions in John 6:30 – 31; 41– 42; and 52. As stated above, however, all three argumentative interludes also involve a scriptural phrase or statement, which can be related to the “primary lemma” in John 6:31. The latter two interludes, moreover, take up discrete aspects of the primary lemma (John 6:31), ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in John 6:41– 42 and δοῦναι φαγεῖν in John 6:52. To further explore the implicit exegetical structure of Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse and the ways the biblical lemma tacitly governs its argument, it will be helpful to review Borgen’s comparative exegetical analysis. Borgen divides Jesus’ pericope in John 6:31 into two major sections: (a) “He gave them bread from heaven,” and (b) “to eat,” which are treated in (a′) John 6:32– 48 and (b′) 6:49 – 58, respectively.⁷¹ Both of these sections, in my estimation, require further division to adequately analyze their patterns of exegesis. As an aid to my analysis, I present Table 4.6 below. The sections of the homily will be analyzed this time in light of their relation to the primary biblical lemma (John 6:31) rather than the evangelist’s three ordering questions.

 Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 33 – 34.

188

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Table 4.6: Exegetical Structure of John 6:31 – 58 John : –   οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον· ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν.  εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσιν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν·  ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ.  εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτὸν· κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον.  εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς· ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε.  ἀλλ’ εἶπον ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε.  πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πάτηρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω,  ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ποῖω τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με.  τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκεν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.  τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.  Ἐγόγγυζον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ,  καὶ ἔλεγον· οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, οὗ ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα; πῶς νῦν λέγει ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβέβηκα;  ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· μὴ γογγύζετε μετ’ ἀλληλῶν.  οὐδεῖς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτὸν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἥμέρᾳ.  ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ.  οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα.  ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων ἐχεῖ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.  ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς.  οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τὸ μάννα καὶ ἀπέθανον·  οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων, ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ. a ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς· b ἐάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, c καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.  ἐμάχοντο οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες· πῶς δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν σάρκα φαγεῖν;  εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.  ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.  ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμα μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις.  ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ.  καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι’ ἐμέ.  οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

§. §. ἐδωκεν

§. αὐτοῖς/ὑμῖν (cf. Exod :, )

§. ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ §.

§. Isa : §. φαγεῖν

§. §.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

189

In the table, I have taken the phrases from the pericope of John 6:31 and indicated the central themes for various sections of the discourse. (§1.1) John 6:31 This verse, despite being placed in the mouth of the crowd, provides the primary biblical lemma for Jesus’ homily according to an exegetical analysis. Jesus will proceed to interpret aspects of this verse in the subsequent sections. (§1.2) John 6:32 – 35 This first homiletic section echoes every aspect of the primary lemma other than eating, placing special emphasis on the verb ἔδωκεν as its major theme and offering a threefold interpretation of “the bread from heaven.” John 6:32 begins by clarifying the giver of the manna: God, i. e. Jesus’ Father, rather than Moses. (As a comparative aside, the Johannine exegetical assertion “not Moses … but the Father” provides a structural and theological analogue to Paul’s “not as Moses … as from the Spirit” in 2 Cor 3:12, 18.) Jesus then goes on, as Borgen rightly claims, to “re-point” the past-tense verb of John 6:31, reading it as a present, “he gives” (δίδωσιν; John 6:32b), instead of a past tense, “he has given” (δέδωκεν; John 6:32a). In John 6:33, the bread itself becomes the giver (διδούς) of eternal life, as the action of the Son and the Father are subtly elided. The crowd, recognizing what Jesus is saying, in John 6:34 appropriately asks Jesus to give (δός) the bread himself, explicitly identifying the action of the Father and the Son. Brown considers the bulk of this paragraph “transitional,” judging the homily’s incipit to arrive with the words “I myself am the bread of life” in John 6:35.⁷² This judgment is made in part on the basis of Brown’s source-critical observations that the two “I am” statements in John 6:35 and 6:51a begin two sections of the homily. In this instance, I think Brown’s quest for symmetry and attention to historical questions may have led his literary criticism astray.⁷³ While it is true that in several instances, Jesus begins a monologue with an “I am” statement (see John 8:12; John 15:1– 8), in other cases, the “I am” statement only enters the discourse after some preceding material (cf. John 10:1– 18; John 14:1– 7). However one wishes to divide dialogue and monologue in John 6, the fact remains that the evangelist clearly begins to interpret the paraphrastic lemma (John 6:31) in John 6:32– 35, focusing of the verb ἔδωκεν; and the bulk of that interpretation is placed on the lips of Jesus.

 Brown, Gospel, 263.  It is my intention in the subsequent analysis to prescind from making any historical claims whatsoever; when speaking of traditions, I mean just that, not the words of the historical Jesus.

190

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

As a counterpoint to this threefold re-interpretation of the subject of the aorist ἔδωκεν (the Father, the bread, the Son), Jesus also offers a threefold interpretation of the phrase “bread from heaven.” The bread that the Father gives is “the true bread from heaven” (John 6:32, τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν); the bread coming down from heaven that gives life to the world is “God’s bread” (John 6:33, ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ); and Jesus is himself finally “living bread” (John 6:35, ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς). Just as the subject of the giving thus changes from Father to Son, so the identity of the bread descends, in a sense, from belonging to God in heaven to restoring the life of the world. Borgen’s suggestion that John uses a Jewish exegetical tradition here helps account for the common, non-scriptural elaborations of the bread from heaven theme found in both Philo and the Fourth Gospel, as well as in the later rabbinic midrashim This analysis of Jesus’ scriptural exegesis highlights the integral position of John 6:35 as the climax of (§1.2) John 6:32– 35; however, this verse, with its themes of “coming to” and “believing in” Jesus (John 6:35b), likewise points forward to (§1.3) John 6:36 – 40 as well. John 6:35 thus functions as a hinge verse (cf. Gal 4:28), demonstrating that drawing any hard and fast divisions in the whole of (§1) John 6:31– 40 remains something of an artificial exercise; the whole retains a rhetorical integrity. (§1.3) John 6:36 – 40: As I argued above, this section largely reiterates and develops themes drawn from John 6:31, 35: seeing, coming, and believing. Additionally, Borgen, in an early article, makes an ingenious case for the exegetical character of this section as well, suggesting that ὑμῖν in John 6:36 clarifies Jesus’ homiletic replacement of αὐτοῖς (John 6:31) with ὑμῖν in John 6:32.⁷⁴ On this reading, ὅτι must be rendered as causal rather than as introducing indirect discourse. John 6:36 then reads: “But I said ‘to you’ [rather than ‘to them’] because …” For such a meaning, one might have liked the exegetical article, τὸ αὐτοῖς,⁷⁵ but Borgen’s reading is convincing nonetheless. The section which follows this brief exegetical link, however, bears little relation to the scriptural lemma. The verb διδόναι does occur twice within this section, but not in the same senses that it appeared in (§1.2) John 6:32– 35. Even the phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (John 6:38), rather than ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (John 6:31, 32, 33, 41, 42), shows only a loose connection to the pericope that is being interpreted. Brown surveys the various proposals for trying to relocate the passage else-

 Peder Borgen, “Observations on the Midrashic Character of John 6,” ZNW 54 (1963): 232– 40, esp. 239.  I refer here to the so-called “substantive making power of the article,” mentioned in Smyth § 1153g. See Demosthenes 18.18 “Whenever I say ‘you,’ I mean the state” (τὸ ὑμεῖς ὅταν λέγω, τὴν πόλιν λέγω).

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

191

where in the homily and finds them wanting.⁷⁶ His assessment is worth consideration: “these verses have no close association with the theme of the bread of life and may have a history of their own.”⁷⁷ It should be reiterated, however, that the themes of seeing and coming to Jesus of John 6:35 do receive attention here. (§2) John 6:41– 51: To recapitulate the argument thus far: in terms of exegetical pattern, (§1) John 6:31– 40 comments on the entire biblical lemma, sans φαγεῖν, focusing especially on the phrase ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς. This second section, as indicated above, highlights the phrase “from heaven,” which helps frame the unit (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, John 6:41, 42, 50, 51). Jesus’ reply to the second question in (§2.2) John 6:43 – 44 may have an independent tradition-history, perhaps related to (§1.3) John 6:36 – 40. Whatever the origins of this passage, however, Jesus’ emphasis on his heavenly “Father” in (§2.2) John 6:43 – 44 and (§2.3) John 6:44, 45, 46bis answers the question posed in (§2.1) John 6:41– 42 (“don’t we know Jesus’ parents?”): Jesus’ paternity is “from heaven.” In (§2.4) John 6:47– 51, Jesus offers a second interpretation of “from heaven.” To use later Trinitarian language, not only does “from heaven” signify Jesus’ origin in God’s immanent being, it likewise specifies the Son’s economic power to give “life.” In doing so, Jesus reiterates the interpretative move he made in John 6:35. It is possible, and indeed likely, that (§2.4) John 6:47– 51 comes from a different strand of the tradition than (§2.1– 3) John 6:41– 46. The evangelist has nonetheless used it quite appropriately here under Jesus’ discussion of “from heaven.” In (§2.4) John 6:47– 51, Jesus also interprets the final word of the pericope, φαγεῖν. Whereas John 6:49 clearly echoes the paraphrase in John 6:31a, John 6:50, 51ab clarify the significance of that final word of the OT pericope in 6:31b. The homily here reaches what could be considered an initial conclusion, with all the elements of the initial pericope having been mentioned. John 6:51ab also nicely recapitulates the three other “I am” statements (John 6:35, 41, 48), bringing “life” and “from heaven” together in a summary fashion.⁷⁸ John 6:51c, however, stands somewhat uneasily in its current position. In particular, the introduction of the term σάρξ is not foreshadowed in the discourse. For the sake of method, however, I will postpone further comment on this verse until the subsequent section. (§3) John 6:52 – 58: One of the major aims of Borgen’s exegetical analysis of the bread of life discourse was to demonstrate the integral nature of the homily;  Brown, Gospel, 269.  Ibid., 275.  The issue of where to end the evangelist’s homily and to begin the addition of the redactor will be addressed in the comment on the section below.

192

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

pace Bultmann, (§3) John 6:52– 58 does not stand as the supplement of an ecclesial redactor. Rather, it continues the piecewise exegesis of the primary lemma in John 6:31, meditating on the final word of the pericope φαγεῖν (John 6:52, 53, 58) and its synonym, τρώγειν (6:54, 56). Borgen’s literary-critical arguments are strong. To my mind, he has successfully problematized Bultmann’s account of the exegetical and theological motivations underlying the redactional addition of John 6:52– 58.⁷⁹ He has not, however, entirely dispensed with the appeal of positing a redactional seam somewhere in this unit.⁸⁰ First, as we have seen in all the exegeses surveyed so far, and especially in the homily in Heb 3:7– 4:11, not every element in a pericope will always be treated in equal depth; the three references to eating in (§2.4) John 6:47– 51 may well represent an expansion rather than an integral part of the original homily. Second, the presence of ring composition in (§2.4) John 6:47– 51 suggests that the homily was being brought to a close. Third, the introduction of the new term σάρξ in John 6:51c, with its strong Eucharistic overtones, clearly introduces a new theme, even if this does not necessitate the introduction of a new source-critical unit (I still think it may, for reasons I will spell out below). Finally, Jesus’ use of the verb δώσω in John 6:51c and the recurrence of the infinitive δοῦναι in John 6:52 clearly mirror the exegetical concerns of John 6:31– 35, which formed the beginning of the bread of life discourse. All of these considerations weigh in favor of the estimations of both Bultmann and Brown, that the bread of life discourse has a second homiletic coda attached to it. This conclusion, however, raises a further correlated question: where does this new Eucharistic section (whether purely thematic or source-critical) begin: at John 6:51a (Brown) or John 6:51c (Bultmann)? As it turns out, the appearance

 In a personal conversation at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland (2013), Professor Borgen told me that his major objection to Bultmann’s thesis remains the notion of a late ecclesial redactor, who united afresh the concepts of manna and Eucharistic bread. As counter-evidence, Borgen argues that the connection between manna and the Eucharist was early, as the two narratives are combined already in 1 Corinthians 10. (See now, Peder Borgen, The Gospel of John: More Light from Philo, Paul and Archaeology : The Scriptures, Tradition, Exposition, Settings, Meaning [NovTSup 154; Leiden: Brill, 2014], which unfortunately came out too late to engage fully in this monograph.) Borgen’s analogy with 1 Corinthians 10 is insightful and stimulating; however, I do not yet wish to stake a position on this major Johannine question, as this would exceed the scope of the present monograph. My argument here is primarily concerned with the exegetical structure and scribal technique evinced in this passage, not the development of Johannine theology in the various purported redactional strata of the Fourth Gospel.  My thanks to Harry Attridge for his confirmation of this critical instinct, again, in personal conversation at the Catholic Biblical Association Annual Meeting at Notre Dame in 2012.

4.2 Homilies in the New Testament

193

of the verb δώσω in John 6:51c provides us with a critical clue. I mentioned above that one of Brown’s reasons for beginning with John 6:51a is that this creates a close parallelism between the beginnings of these two homilies (6:35, 51). While I agree with Brown that there are striking and probably intentional parallelisms between the bread of life discourse and the Eucharistic coda, I do not agree that beginning with an “I am” statement was one of them. According to my division, all the “I am” statements belong to the first part of the homily. Rather, both the discourse proper and the Eucharistic coda begin with an exegesis of the verb “to give” (John 6:32, 53). I make this judgment in the first place on the grounds that I do not think (pace Brown) that the homiletic unit begins at John 6:35, but with the citation of the OT pericope in John 6:31 and the subsequent treatment of the verb ἔδωκεν. If a traditional homily underlies this account, surely it began in such a fashion also. The echo of ἔδωκεν in John 6:51c, 52, does not feature in Brown’s chart of parallels between the evangelist’s homily and the Eucharistic coda,⁸¹ but it should have. Indeed, the last three elements of the pericope in John 6:31c, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν, are echoed in the next verse, John 6:52. As αὐτοῖς, in the first homily, is replaced by the dative pronoun ὑμῖν, similarly this time it is replaced by the first person plural ἡμῖν. The move to the first person plural may indicate an initially more intimate setting, such as the oft-proposed last supper.⁸² It would appear, then, that John 6:51c – 58 does not simply continue the meditation on φαγεῖν, as Borgen thinks, nor imitate the previous homily beginning from John 6:35, as Brown concludes, but that the Eucharistic coda follows the pattern of exegesis detected in John 6:31– 51b in miniature, circling back to the first word of the pericope (ἔδωκεν) and meditating in depth on the last (φαγεῖν). So far, I have argued only for the presence of a distinct, homiletic/exegetical unit in John 6:51c – 58. I have not yet gone so far as to corroborate the addition of a new source. The strongest evidence in favor of a source-critical division here, to my mind, is not a theological one (such as the introduction of a foreign Eucharistic doctrine to the passage), but an observation from the traces of Greek scribal practice. Reading slowly the first four words of John 6:51c, καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δέ, it appears that the δέ is redundant and that the initial conjunction does not add merely one word, but an entire phrase: “and ‘the bread which I will give is my

 Brown, Gospel, 288 – 89.  This would not, of course, necessitate concluding that there were originally no Eucharistic overtones in the first, longer homily.

194

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

flesh for the life of the world.’”⁸³ The fact that the entire ensuing argument is closely interwoven with this clause suggests that a redactor added the entire section, John 6:51c – 58, and left an intentional mark of his scribal work. While I am thus convinced that John 6:51c constitutes the redactional seam, I fully realize that not everyone will agree with this reconstruction. The argument for literary and source-critical unity has been made most convincingly by Rudolf Schnackenburg. The fundamental insight which drives Schnackenberg’s argument for unity is not Borgen’s exegetical approach, but an observation about the Fourth Evangelist’s compositional technique: his love of “connections.” Like the author of 1 John, the Fourth Evangelist “is fond of using a phrase at the end of a section to announce the subject of the following one.” John 6:51c exemplifies this redactional style perfectly, announcing the “flesh” and “eating” themes of the subsequent section.⁸⁴ Along with this penchant for circular composition comes the Fourth Evangelist’s concomitant love of gradual thematic development. Schnackenburg demonstrates this earlier in his exposition, arguing that in John 6:31– 34, Jesus develops the “bread of life” theme in various ways but waits until John 6:35 to finally reveal himself to be God’s bread.⁸⁵ A similar thematic development, Schnackenburg argues, may be happening to the terms “give” and “flesh” between John 6:51c and John 6:52– 53. To define this development, Schnackenburg draws, crucially, on the thesis of Heinz Schürmann, that the σάρξ of John 6:51c does not yet have the Eucharistic overtones it will acquire in the subsequent verses.⁸⁶ Rather, at the end of this major homiletic unit, flesh refers only to Jesus’ physical flesh, which he will give on the cross. It follows that δώσω, similarly, should not yet be heard in light of the Synoptic institution narratives (cf. Luke 22:19 – 20), for in John 6:51c, flesh and eating are not yet combined in the same clause as they will be in John 6:52– 53. Schnackenburg himself is not entirely convinced by Schürmann’s ingenious reading. The Eucharistic overtones in John 6:51b are too strong for him to overlook. He opts instead for a mediating solution: “51c can therefore

 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 234, n.4. As parallel instances of this scribal practice in the Johannine circle, Bultmann points to 1 John 1:3; and outside, Matt 10:18 and 2 Tim 3:12. Cf. BDF § 447, 9.  Schnackenburg, John, 55.  Schnackenburg, John, 43: “Jesus now [in John 6:35] speaks the decisive word which tears the veil away from the bread of God he means.”  Heinz Schürmann, “Joh 6:51c—ein Schlüssel zur grossen johanneischen Brotrede,” BZ 2 (1958): 244– 262.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

195

be both the end of the ‘metaphor’ and the beginning of the Eucharistic section.”⁸⁷ However one solves or dissolves this source-critical crux, John 6:51c – 58, in putting far more weight, proportionally speaking, on φαγεῖν than on any other word from the pericope of John 6:31, has a certain similarity to the pattern of exegesis in Heb 4:1– 11, where the final element of the homilist’s biblical lemma is expounded at great length and amplified by a “circular” reference to the beginning of the lemma. The difference between these two passages, however, is that John 6:51c – 58, like John 6:31– 51b, treats only one OT verse over the course of the entire homily. In conclusion, the pattern of exegesis that Borgen that finds here in John— and its miniature reduplication in the Eucharistic coda—clearly constitutes a further example of secondary-level exegesis, this time discovered in a homily imbedded within a dispute scene in a Gospel. In terms of its exegetical pattern, John 6:31– 58 seems at first blush to have closer affinities with Rom 4:3 – 25 than with 2 Cor 3:7– 18. In both Romans and John, key phrases from a single pentateuchal scene are meditated on at some length and in partially a reverse order of the textual sequence. Just as Romans 4 treats Abraham’s “reckoning” prior to his “faith,” so John 6 treats God’s “giving” prior to the bread “from heaven.” In its subject matter, however, John 6:31– 58 clearly stands closer to the Moses traditions of the Corinthian correspondence, and its paraphrastic blending of manna and the Eucharist strongly resembles 1 Corinthians 10.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone 4.3.1 Introduction While the texts I have treated thus far supply examples of secondary-level exegesis found in Jewish and Christian commentary traditions that have been labeled “homiletic,” none of them presents the homiletic Gattung in the narrowest sense, that is, a homily as it might have been transcribed by a stenographer in a synagogue or house church setting. Peter’s and Paul’s homilies in Acts 2 and 13, as well Jesus’ homilies in Luke 4 and John 6, are either redactional creations on the model of ancient sermons or the incorporation of previously composed homilies within the genre of Gospel or apologetic historiography.

 Schnackenburg, John, 55.

196

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

The precise genre and Sitz im Leben of Hebrews is more difficult to determine. Hebrews probably comes closer than anything in the NT to preserving a specimen of early Christian preaching, and the text was clearly intended for proclamation. However, the epistolary postscript of Heb 13:18 – 25, largely agreed to be an integral part of the original composition,⁸⁸ suggests that Hebrews is best viewed as a kind of generic hybrid. Presuming it was read aloud publicly, Hebrews stands as an example of a pre-composed exegesis rather than as a transcription of an impromptu homily. Moreover, it clearly belongs to the category of epistolary exhortation, i. e., the public reading of a letter as a kind of apostolic performance in absentia, which is attested in our earliest Christian documents (e. g. 1 Thess 5:27). It is thus not simply an instance of homiletic oratory. In fact, there is no text in the New Testament which preserves an early Christian sermon, pure and simple.⁸⁹ Among the Hellenistic-Jewish writings, Peder Borgen has putatively isolated homiletic material in several treatises of Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, including Leg. 3.162– 68 and Mut. 253 – 63. Even if Borgen’s categorization of the material as homiletic is accepted, one runs up against a similar problem to that encountered in the NT use of homiletic tradition, namely, that Philo has redacted the homiletic material to fit the scholastic commentary, thus potentially altering its original form. In looking for an authentic example of an early Christian or Jewish sermon, one might need to look ahead to 4 Maccabees or 2 Clement—or, if these are better classed as diatribe, to Melito of Sardis’s Easter homily—were it not for the preservation of two homilies in a late sixth-century Armenian translation of Philo’s writings, De Jona and De Sampsone. ⁹⁰ For introductory issues on these two fascinating homilies, I refer the reader to the Folker Siegert’s excellent German introduction and commentary and Hans Lewy’s shorter but also indispensable English introduction.⁹¹ Here I will introduce these texts only in their most essential details. Although both De Jona and De Sampsone survive solely in Armenian translation, a spurious Greek frag-

 See Attridge, Hebrews, 13 – 14; Rothschild, Pseudepigraphon, 3.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 4.  See Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 13 – 20. On the difficulties involved in dating the Armenian translation of De Jona and the linguistic and historical factors which suggest a late sixth-century dating, see the learned and fascinating discussion by Hans Lewy, The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, Part I: The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction (ed. Kirsopp Lake and Silva Lake; Studies and Documents 7; London: Christophers, 1936), 9 – 16.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 1– 8; Drei Predigten II; Lewy, De Jona; see also the Latin translation and introduction by Johann Baptist Aucher, Philonis Judaei paralipomena Armena (Venice, 1826).

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

197

ment analyzed by James Royse suggests that the original composition of the homilies was in Greek.⁹² This judgment is confirmed by scholars of Armenian patristics, who judge the Armenian style of the homilies to be somewhat wooden and unintelligible without recourse to the idea of a Greek Vorlage. ⁹³ It is indeed a shame that Lewy never published the second volume of his work, in which he intended to make a Greek retroversion of parts of the text.⁹⁴ While Lewy remained skeptical about a complete retroversion, he insisted that certain phrases could be rendered into Greek with reasonably dependable accuracy.⁹⁵ Although the original Greek homiletic prosody is undoubtedly lost, such a retroversion remains a desideratum for the sake of mining the homilist’s theology and could be undertaken after a study of the Armenian translation techniques of other Philonic works, where an extant Greek text exists as a control.⁹⁶ Without diving too deeply into the details, I accept both Siegert’s judgment that De Jona and De Sampsone were composed by a rhetorically trained Greekspeaking Jewish author (whether by one or several authors does not matter for this study) and also the scholarly consensus that the author was not Philo of Alexandria.⁹⁷ While the question of the provenance and date of these texts is a bit more difficult to establish,⁹⁸ Siegert’s stylistic judgment that the sermons were probably intended for proclamation in a large space like the διπλόστοον in Alexandria hits near the mark.⁹⁹ Siegert’s proposed date range between the first century B.C.E. and the early second century C.E., while not dependent on an Alexandrian location, also seems probable and would be supported by an

 Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 39; see James Royse, The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria: A Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collections of Greek Fragments (ALGHJ 22; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 89 – 92.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 4, note e; Lewy, De Jona, 17, who quotes Aucher: “Haeret enim pede presso Graeco textui; nec auctoris sui sensa exhibit tantum, sed ipsa paene verba enumerat, ita ut Haicanae (i. e. Armenae) sint voces eaeque elegantissimae antiquissimae, phrasis vero atque constructio omnino Graeca.” (emphasis added.)  Lewy, De Jona, 3.  Lewy, De Jona, 22.  Such, in fact, was Lewy’s aim and methodology: the task remains to be undertaken in full. See Lewy, De Jona, 16 – 24.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 2; idem, Drei Predigten II, 40: The homilist’s reticence to engage in allegoresis is not probative in denying Philonic authorship; it remains unlikely on the grounds of the author’s mythological physics and determination that God can change his mind; cf. Philo, Prov., etc.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 40: “Sie kann nicht anders als durch Zusammentragen vieler kleiner, unbeabsichtiger Indizien beantwortet werden.”  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 11; 49 – 51.

198

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Alexandrian setting, since the Alexandrian Jewish community was decimated by the mid-second century.¹⁰⁰ Of course, as Martin Hengel, Martin Goodman, and others have pointed out, we cannot entirely rule out a Palestinian or Antiochene origin for Greco-Jewish texts.¹⁰¹ Siegert’s judgment, however, is based on multiple considerations, including the highly developed Asianist rhetoric of these homilies, the absence of any overt polemic against Roman or Christian rulers, and the lack of warning against later Gnostic speculation.¹⁰² Moreover, the concern with Greek vices in De J. 106, which echoes the concerns of Pseudo-Phocylides, likewise represents for Siegert “ein Hinweis auf Zustände des 1. Jh. n. Chr.”¹⁰³ If Siegert is correct about the Zeitraum and provenance of these homilies, then they are quite important and underused sources. First, they provide a complement to the Philonic corpus, alongside earlier Hellenistic sources like Aristobulus, the Letter of Aristeas, and Demetrius, for reconstructing a historical picture of Alexandrian Judaism around the time of Paul. Moreover, De Jona and De Sampsone offer important information about patterns of homiletic exegesis as they existed in the first or second century. Siegert himself summarizes the scholarly moment of these homilies in a similar vein: Durch die Erschließung der ps.-philonischen Predigten und ihren Vergleich mit Philon kommt nun … ein Höhepunkt jüdischer Eloquenz neben dem Höhepunkt jüdischer Philosophie zu stehen; dies sind die seit Isokrates und Platon rivalisierenden griechischen Bildungsideale innerhalb des antiken Judentums. Dem Historiker des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters eröffnen sich neue Einsichten in die Ursprünge der christlichen Predigt.¹⁰⁴

 Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 48: “Nach all dem Gesagten belassen wir sie im 1.vorchristlichen bis 2.christlichen Jahrhundert, mit Schwerpunkt in der Mitte dieser Zeit,” i. e. the homilies most likely stem from the first century C.E. Cf. Jacob Freudenthal, Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (IV Makkabäerbuch): eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert (Breslau [Wroclaw]: Schletter, 1869), 10, who likewise poses a terminus ante quem of the late-first/early-second centuries, but denies that an earlier dating is possible.  In addition to Martin Hengel’s classic study, Judaism and Hellenism, see Hengel, “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel (ed. John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling; CJAS 13; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 6 – 37 and Martin Goodman, “Epilogue,” in ibid., 302– 5.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 47. In Siegert’s view, one should not read too much into the refusal of the angel to reveal his name to Manoah in De S. § 16. Such a detail finds a ready foil in the rather benign Christian “Gnosis” of Luke 1:19, 26 and is also evinced in the pastoral epistles; it need not be connected with a full-blown Valentinian teaching of the later second century. The refusal may also be related to Manoah’s presentation as a faithless foil of Abraham’s faith and righteousness, one of the homilist’s key themes.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 47.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 2.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

199

The relatively scant use of De Jona and De Sampsone, especially in Anglophone scholarship, may be due to that fact that these texts are preserved only in Armenian and that translations had until recently been limited to Aucher’s Latin, which often fails to convey the Greek syntax underlying the Armenian,¹⁰⁵ and Siegert’s more exacting German. While I have generally relied on Siegert’s translation, in several important cases, I also reproduce the Armenian text itself to demonstrate my argument more clearly. As the following study will show, these remarkable homilies use exegetical patterns similar to those found throughout the Pauline corpus. While Paul’s exegesis of Exodus in 2 Corinthians still finds its closest structural parallel in Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, De Jona and De Sampsone nonetheless demonstrate that homiletic exegesis proceeded linearly through a scriptural pericope, and, indeed, through entire biblical chapters or books. One witnesses here as well copious examples of sequential paraphrase in Alexandrian homiletic exegesis, similar to that found in Gal 3:22– 23, 29 and 2 Cor 3:7, 10, 13, and 16. On the whole, these homilies treat much longer segments of text than did the small homilies in Hebrews, Acts, and John; as such, they resemble the paraphrastic exegesis of Philo’s De Vita Mosis or the exemplary lives of the patriarchs in Philo’s Exposition of the Law. Nonetheless both homilies evince distinct clusters of sequential exegesis which treat smaller pericopes over quite brief periods, much as 2 Corinthians 3, Acts 2, and Hebrews 3 – 4. Moreover, several passages in De Sampsone show that the impromptu homilist might offer multiple citations of the same verse, and sometimes even multiple interpretations. School commentary traditions, then, remained quite influential on expository preaching; in all likelihood, the influence was probably bidirectional. In sum, De Jona and De Sampsone provide an unparalleled window into the practices of textual commentary in more popular Jewish literature.

4.3.2 De Jona and the De Jona Fragment Although De Jona is the more polished and perhaps the more complete of the two homilies,¹⁰⁶ it provides fewer useful instances of secondary-level exegesis.

 Lewy, De Jona, 2. A new English translation of De Jona and De Sampsone is available in L.H. Feldman et al., eds., Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013).  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 6, surmises that De Sampsone may be preserved only in part: “De Sampsone setzt darüber hinaus so unvermittelt ein und bricht so unvorbereitet ab, daß sich größere Verluste am Anfang und am Ende vermuten lassen.” Siegert admits, however, that this may

200

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Throughout its fifty three chapters, De Jona only includes four scriptural citations (De J. §47, §104, §144, §192) and only employs four citation formulae (De J. §47 [Jonah 1:11]; §67 [Jonah 2:2]; §176 [Isa 48:13]; §192 [Jonah 3:4]). While De Jona clearly evinces a sequential pattern of exegesis, it covers much more biblical text in much less detail than the homilies in Hebrews and John do. After a brief introduction and typological reading of Nineveh as Everycity, on the basis of an astute allusion to Gen 10:11 (De J. 1– 3), the homilist of De Jona proceeds to retell and interpret select verses from Jonah 1 (De J. 4– 15), Jonah 2 (De J. 16 – 26a), Jonah 3 (De J. 26b – 39), and Jonah 4 (De J. 40 – 53). The homily ends as the book of Jonah does, with God declaring to the prophet his universalistic φιλανθρωπία, the key theological theme of the homily. Although there are some intentional deviations from the biblical sequence of events (e. g. De J. 40 = Jonah 4:5 – 6 and De J. 41 = Jonah 4:1– 3), the homilist generally follows the text very closely, often echoing particular words and expanding them into larger themes. Such a wide-ranging scope, as Siegert argues, is what one would expect in an actual homily preached in a synagogue or προσευχή at a Sabbath service with the aim of educating and entertaining a large popular audience.¹⁰⁷ The suitability of this homily to such an audience can be demonstrated by a stylistic and exegetical analysis. On the one hand, the homilist does not belabor minute points of syntax or grammatical problems, the kinds of triggers which usually piqued the interest of commentators of a more scholastic or scribal bent. On the other hand, the homilist is able to pay close attention to the particularities of a verse, taking a theme like Jonah’s flight (Jonah 1:3a, φυγεῖν; cf. Jonah 1:10; 4:2), turning it into the leitmotif of a single section (De J. 6: §20, §21, §22), and then reintroducing it later on and interweaving it throughout the rest of the homily (De J. §27, §85–§86, §89, §157, §161, §163, §165, §175, §176bis, §178, §179, §180, §209).¹⁰⁸ The amplification of the flight theme renders plausible Siegert’s hypothesis that this sermon on Jonah was preached on the Day of be due in part to the spontaneous nature of the homily. The homily’s completeness may be suggested by the fact that two entire chapters are treated in full, while the climax of the story is included in the opening; or perhaps this was the first of a two part “sermon series?” In either event, despite his failure in the beginning, Samson emerges positively by the end of the homily, providing a compelling figure for imitation. If the preacher’s aim was to rehabilitate Samson, that apologetic goal is accomplished.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 6.  It is worth noting that Philo also devoted an entire treatise in his Allegorical Commentary to the theme of φυγή, albeit in a slightly different register. Moreover, the catena of texts he interprets are drawn together primarily by the verb ἀποδιδράσκειν (e. g. Fug. 1, 39, 48, etc.), with φυγεῖν as an important but secondary synonym (see Fug. 42, 53).

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

201

Atonement, when the homilist could have called his congregation to stop fleeing and return to the God of Israel. Despite his occasional meditation on a single word or theme, the homilist of De Jona typically paraphrases large portions of his text, in the manner of Philo’s Exposition. There is, however, a second fragment of an Armenian homily De Jona, appended to the complete homily, that employs a pattern of exegesis closer to the one used in 2 Cor 3:7– 18, Heb 3:7– 19, and Acts 2:25 – 36. Here, elements of a mid-length OT pericope receive sequential treatment and expansion. The fragment picks up the story with Jonah 1:8, as the sailors are interrogating all the passengers on their ill-fated vessel. It provides a formal and substantive parallel to the account in De J. 11– 15 and several of the same key phrases are identified and expanded by the homilist in both sections (flight, servant of the Lord). In both De Jona and the fragment, moreover, the homilist attends to a “problem” in the biblical narrative: how can the sailors throw a “servant of the Lord” overboard with impunity? What is perhaps most fascinating is the fact that the two homilies solve the problem of Jonah’s ejection from the boat in radically different ways. De Jona presents the more controversial solution: Jonah, rather than being cast overboard, recognizes his own guilt and throws himself into the sea “as a self-offering” (De J. 13). The homilist provides a window into Jonah’s interior dialogue, in which he ascertains both that his own death sentence has been proclaimed, and that he might yet save the sailors and in his death become “a monument for humanity” (De J. 14). The homilist then praises Jonah for his concern for others (De J. 15). Thus the sailors are saved from guilt by allowing Jonah to take (or rather, give) his own life. The fragment of De Jona, by contrast, presents a much more traditional picture. Although the scene does not reach its conclusion, Jonah sticks to the biblical script and orders the sailors to throw him overboard. Siegert has argued that the fragment may have been part of a replacement for De J. 11– 15, as the idea of Jonah’s suicide would have seemed ethically problematic.¹⁰⁹ This argument garners support from the fact that Jonah’s speech (“It is unlawful to throw oneself into the sea”) in the De Jona fragment (see below) explicitly forbids Jonah’s actions in De J. 14 (“[he] threw himself into the frothing sea”). The use of similar themes in both homilies (Jonah as judge of the sailors; Jonah as servant of the Lord; flight) makes it possible that the sections could be interchanged. The De Jona fragment, however, could not have replaced all or part of De J. 11– 15 without creating some gap or duplication of content. It would also repre-

 Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 52.

202

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

sent a striking departure from the measured exegetical pace and pattern in De Jona on the whole. I think it more likely, then, that the fragment of De Jona was originally part of an independent homily on Jonah, perhaps a repeat performance in a less formal context or even a variant “edition.” Because the fragment is significant for this study, I have reproduced the Armenian text here in Table 4.7, along with a fresh English translation, structural division (A–D), and identification of the scriptural lemmata. Table 4.7: Exegetical Pattern of De Jona Fragment De Jona (Fragment)

Translation

LXX o Lemma

(A) Ապա իբրեւ դատաւորք նաւազքն, “ուստի՞ ես,” ասեն, “եւ յորմէ՞ ծողովրդենէ, եւ զի՞նչ գործես”։ (B) Եւ ապա հարցեալք եւ ուսեալք, ոչ յարձակին ի վերայ արդարոյն, այլ անդրէն ընդդէմ, զայն որ դատէինն, իբր դատաւոր նստուցանեն. եւ ասեն, “զի՞նչ արասցուք ընդ քեզ” դու դատ արարեալ ընտրեա, քանզի մեք զծառայէ Աստուծոյ¹¹⁰ վՃիռ մահու հատանել ոչ կարեմք։ (C) Իսկ նա ասէ, “առէք զիս եւ ընկեցէք.” այսինքն ետու զիս ի ձեռն ոսոխացդ, դուք ընկեցէք զիս ի ներքս.¹¹¹ քանզի զանձն ընկենուլ ի ծով անօրէն է.

Then the sailors, like judges, said [to Jonah] “where are you from and from which people and what is your work?”

Cf. Jonah :b (τίς σου ἡ ἐργασία ἐστίν; καὶ πόθεν ἔρχῃ, καὶ ἐκ ποίας χώρας καὶ ἐκ ποίου λαοῦ εἶ σύ;)

And having asked and learned [the answer], they do not make an assault upon the just man; but to the contrary, he whom they were judging now they seat as judge and say, “you yourself make the judgment and choose ‘what we are to do with you.’ For we ourselves cannot pronounce a death sentence on a servant of God.” But he himself says, “Take me and throw [me],” that is, “I have given myself into the hands of these enemies; you yourselves throw me in. For it is unlawful to throw oneself into the sea.

Jonah : (τί σοι ποιήσωμεν;)

Cf. Jonah : (δοῦλος κυρίου) Jonah : (ἄρατε με καὶ ἐμβάλλετε με εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν)

 Aucher’s Armenian text uses the abbreviated form of the nomen sacrum.  The Greek Vorlage clearly has a form of βάλλω, but its prepositional prefix (if it is a compound verb) is not entirely clear. Siegert renders the Armenian ի ներքս as “hinaus”, which would make it an echo of ἐξέβαλον in Jonah 1:15. However, Aucher’s intus more closely renders the Armenian compound preposition ի ներքս, “inside” (so Mathias Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English [Venice: St. Lazarus Armenian Academy, 1875 – 79], 529), which suggests that the imperative ἐμβάλλετε of Jonah 1:12 is actually still in view. The aorist form of the imperative (ընկեցէք) in both instances can be explained by the fact that present imperative in Armenian is only used for prohibitions.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

203

De Jona (Fragment)

Translation

LXX o Lemma

Քանզի ոտիւք փախեայ … եւ որ ի վերայ երկրի մեծաքայլս փախչէի, ի ծովու անփախչելի վիճակաւ յանդիմանեցայ։

For I fled with my feet … and I, who am fleeing over the earth with great strides, on the sea have been reprimanded with a lot that cannot be fled.¹¹²

Cf. Jonah : (διότι ἔγνωσαν οἱ ἄνδρες ὅτι ἐκ προσώπου κυρίου ἦν φεύγων, ὅτι ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς)

“Առէք զիս,” քանզի ոչ գիտագի որ երբեմն խեռեալ զփարաւովն կորոյս. եւ յերկրի փախելով ոչ գիտացի, զի երբեմն զողն թօթափեալ զկորխայինսն կենդանւոյն ծածկեայ …

“Take me,” for I did not recognize Him, who once destroyed Pharaoh in his rebellion; and by my flight on the Cf. Exodus  –  earth, I did not recognize that once He buried alive the stiffnecked Korah and his companions … Cf. Num : – 

(C, cont.)

(D)

Cf. Jonah : (ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Ἰωνᾶν) Jonah : (ἄρατε με)

The fragment of De Jona freely quotes three verses, Jonah 1:8b, 1:11, and 1:12 sequentially in close proximity, which serve as the structural backbone of the pericope. The citations are made unceremoniously, sans formulae. Section (A) quotes Jonah 1:8b with a minor inversion of sequence. Sections (B) and (C) then quote Jonah 1:11, 12 unobtrusively as part of the dialogue. The procedure in these second two sections stands in sharp formal contrast to De J. 12, where Jonah 1:11 is cited with a formula (“as the scripture says”) and given a chapter-long interpretation. Jonah’s response (Jonah 1:12) is then paraphrastically picked up only in De J. 13. The final section of the De Jona fragment (D) offers a further interpretation of Jonah 1:12, focusing this time only on Jonah’s first imperative, “take me,” and alluding to two pentateuchal stories of rebellion against God. The homilist’s close attention to his biblical lemma can be further demonstrated by the fact that both the second and third citations (B and C) receive metaleptic explication from the surrounding biblical context. So, (B) the sailor’s question in Jonah 1:11, “What are we to do with you?” is interpreted with reference to Jonah 1:9. It is particularly Jonah’s role as “servant of the Lord,” the sai-

 This translation is admittedly cumbersome, but conveys the etymological connection between the verb of fleeing (փախչիմ) and the “ayb-privitave” (անփախչել) which probably renders the Greek ἄφυκτος in the Vorlage. In this case, Siegert’s German equivalent, “unentfliehbaren Los” clearly surpasses Aucher’s Latin rendering, inevitabilis sors, the latter of which obscures the etymological connection.

204

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

lors add, that puts them in a pickle.¹¹³ Jonah’s response, (C) “throw me overboard” (Jonah 1:12), is likewise interpreted by the prophet with an allusion to the theme of flight in Jonah 1:10. Here, a quite interesting secondary pattern emerges: just as the three explicit quotations proceed sequentially (1:8, 1:11, 1:12), so the first two amplifications are drawn sequentially from the text (1:9, 1:10), in each case drawing on material prior to the citation. Jonah’s answer in (C) likewise picks up on the theme of the “lots” from Jonah 1:7. There are, of course, places in De Jona and De Sampsone where the sequential exegesis of verses happens. For instance, in De J. 11– 12, Jonah 1:8 and 9 are referenced in sequence and in relatively close proximity, followed by a citation of Jonah 1:11 in De J. 12.¹¹⁴ What sets these instances apart from the exegetical pattern in the De Jona fragment is the density and length of these citations and explications. Siegert recognizes the unique place of this fragment and eloquently expresses its importance in terms similar to my analysis above: Das besondere Interesse dieses Fragments für die Geschichte der jüdischen und christlichen Predigt besteht darin, daß es eine andere Art von Schriftauslegung darstellt als die sehr breit expandierenden Paraphrasen De J. und De S. In kurzer Folge werden Jon 1,8; 1,11 und 1,12 zitiert und kommentiert, ehe eine Kette biblischer Beispiele einsetzt – letzteres dem Leser hellenistisch-jüdischer Schriften wieder sehr vertraut. Dies ist – wenn es denn auch mündliche Rede war – eine förmliche Homilie im strengeren Sinne: eng am Text entlanggehend, doch mit der Freiheit zu kleineren Exkursen.¹¹⁵

Siegert’s designation of the fragment of De Jona as “a formal homily in the narrow sense” over and against the “quite widely expansive paraphrases of De Jona and De Sampsone” should not cause us to overlook the importance of the latter two documents. However, the fragment clearly provides a unique window into the form of early homilies. Like 2 Cor 3:7– 18, it sequentially engages a midlength biblical pericope of five to eight verses in an implicit fashion. These references are, moreover, selective and fourfold, just like 2 Cor 3:7– 18. The De Jona fragment should thus be counted in the body of evidence demonstrating the partial link between 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and the homiletic commentary. These otherwise striking similarities between 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and the De Jona fragment, however, need to be qualified by a general observation and two dissimilarities. First, one should observe that the similar length of the pericope treated in each text derives accidentally from the fragmentary nature of the De  Cf. De J. 11, where Jonah 1:8 and 1:9 are referenced in sequence.  De S. 41 presents perhaps the closest parallel to the exegetical pattern in the fragment, as it too reconstructs a dialogue from scriptural citations.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 52.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

205

Jona fragment. If the De Jona fragment continues like the longer homily, then the entire book was treated. Second, two dissimilarities with 2 Cor 3:7– 18 should also be noted. In the first place, the De Jona fragment engages the biblical text through four modified citations. 2 Cor 3:7– 18, to the contrary, alternates between paraphrase and textual engagement. Second, and more importantly, the De Jona fragment presents more like a species of rewritten bible than a commentary used to amplify a different argument. In other words, the De Jona fragment is clearly primary-level exegesis. As such, the secondary-level patterns in Philo’s Allegorical Commentary still remain the closest match of any of the material yet surveyed.

4.3.3 De Sampsone Much of what needs to be said about the broader exegetical pattern of De Sampsone has already been said about De Jona. The two homilies are quite similar and both exhibit Siegert’s hallmark of oral performance: copia verborum. ¹¹⁶ The importance of this document, however, lies in its apparently impromptu origin, as designated by its superscription and subscription: “without preparation.” Whereas De Jona was probably prepared with notes prior to its delivery, as would be appropriate for a sermon preached on a major fast like the Day of Atonement, Siegert suggests that De Sampsone shows signs of being completely spontaneous, a homily for a typical Sabbath.¹¹⁷ One mark of the impromptu nature of this document is the pronounced voice of the homilist. In De Sampsone, the opinions of the preacher self-consciously surface with frequency, whereas in De Jona the homilist seems to present his positions in the guise of various characters or in other indirect ways.¹¹⁸ Another characteristic of this homily is of particular interest for this study: the heightened presence of school commentary traditions. In both its pattern of exegesis and methods of interpretation, De Sampsone actually stands closer

 Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 8: “Das wichtigste Erkennungszeichen mündlicher Rede ist die Breite, die copia verborum.”  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 37.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 37: “Bezeichnender mag es sein, daß De J. mit größerem Geschick Zwischenüberlegungen des Predigers einkleidet in Reden handelnder Figuren, wohingegen der De-S.-Redner öfters ausdrücklich auf seine Rednertätigkeit reflektiert … und damit ein – nicht so elegantes – Gliederungsmoment einbringt.”

206

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

than De Jona to the De Jona fragment.¹¹⁹ It might seem paradoxical that school traditions would emerge in an unprepared homily but not in a prepared one. Surely the homilist making ready his remarks for the Day of Atonement would want to pull out all the stops of his exegetical organ? And yet, the author of De Jona exercises admirable reserve in holding back more advanced exegetical strategies. He offers instead a carefully calibrated popular piece, replete with imaginative expansions. The whale, for instance, becomes a kind of natural submarine, which carries Jonah as a king on a bier, and through the eyes of which the penitent prophet can explore the depths of the ocean. Jonah presents himself as the ultimate “adventurer” (De J. 42), and Siegert has aptly described this piece as “ancient science-fiction” with an aim to entertain as well as instruct.¹²⁰ Popular and novelistic elements are likewise present in De Sampsone. But one also finds here an increase of formal features and a clearer self-exposure of the author’s exegetical strategies. Already at its outset, De Sampsone reveals a structural difference from De Jona. It begins in medias res, with a strong man’s head resting on the lap of a stronger woman and our hero’s fate resting literally on the edge of a knife. Neither character is named and through this anonymity the homilist both heightens the dramatic intensity of the scene and begins to draw out its universal implications. Only with the quotation of LXX Judg 16:17 in the middle of De S. 1 does the audience receive at last the suspected but nonetheless heart-wrenching information necessary to identify the characters, as the Nazirite utters in his dreamy stupor, “A knife should never come upon my head.” De S. 1– 4 goes on to set out the major themes of the homily. Interestingly, the ensuing homily will never make it back to LXX Judges 16. Instead, De S. 5 – 20 is comprised of a predominantly sequential treatment of nearly every verse of LXX Judg 13:2– 25, Samson’s infancy narrative. The rest of the homily, De S. 21– 46, again studiously treats almost every verse in LXX Judg 14:1– 20 (LXX Judg 14:7 being an important omission), concluding that Samson is both a hero and a sage worthy of emulation. While a close analysis of the patterns of exegesis in both homilies reveals a sequential principle, several times in De Sampsone this principle is explicitly stated. This (1) self-conscious articulation of methodology is the first recourse to school-tradition made by the homilist. The principle is signaled initially in De S. 4, where, after the climactic beginning of the homily and theological intro-

 So Siegert Drei Predigten II, 52, note 56, who references Freudenthal’s similar judgment in several places in his study of 4 Maccabees.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 144– 47.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

207

duction, the homilist admits that he has digressed and will return to his promised topic and to the appropriate beginning of the events under discussion: But lest we digress from the speech which we had taken up beforehand and waste words on a different point, we wish to come back to our promised sermon and the beginning of [these] events.¹²¹

Similarly, after rebuking those who wrongly blame the spirit in Samson for his marriage to a Philistine woman, introducing an implicit secondary lemma (Isa 11:2), and a long digression on various spiritual gifts in De S. 24– 26, the homilist again addresses the audience: “So much for justification of the spirit. Now, however, we wish to come back again to Samson and the biblical narrative.”¹²² Both of these examples imply that the homilist is using a sequential principle. A third example is even more telling. In De S. 33 – 35, the homilist makes a long digression on the dangers of intermarriage and the wiles of foreign wives. This digression comes between the paraphrastic narration of LXX Judg 14:13 in De S. 32 and LXX Judg 14:14b in De S. 36. This digression, however, obliquely comments neither on Samson’s riddle nor on his companions’ acceptance of his wager and inability to solve it, but rather on his new wife’s betrayal in LXX Judg 14:17. The homilist thus steps out of sequence and makes a digression. At the end of De S. 35, however, he indicates that he will return to the correct scriptural sequence and states his sequential formula in explicit terms: (We had) intended, however, to explain what happened in the question about the riddle; the consideration of the enchantment of the heathen wife interfered with this and interrupted the narrative. Let us now return to the place from whence we left off.¹²³

The unpreparedness of the improvisational preacher proves a boon for the history of exegesis. Unlike the polished presentation in De Jona, the homilist here articulates the implicit control exercised by the OT text, which is determinative of his pattern of exegesis. More particular to the scholastic tradition, and likewise lacking in De Jona, is (2) the homilist’s presentation of multiple opinions on textual/literary problems. This zetematic tradition is best known to students of ancient Jewish exegesis from Philo’s first exegetical commentary series, the Quaestiones, likewise

 Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 53.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 68.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 75.

208

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

largely preserved in Armenian. It also occurs not infrequently in the Allegorical Commentary.¹²⁴ The presentation (and refutation) of various textual problems was a hallmark of Alexandrian commentary from the early Homeric scholiasts to the later commentators on the Septuagint.¹²⁵ While it is quite frequent in scholastic commentary and diatribe, it occurs only rarely in these homiletic texts. The best example comes from De S. 23 – 25a, where the author presents three possible answers to the question: why did Samson fall in love with a foreign woman? These are: (1) God allowed it as part of his plan to get vengeance on the Philistines; (2) Samson fell into lust and broke God’s law; and (3) the spirit in Samson led him to err. The homilist approves of either (1) or (2) and thinks each have scriptural and theological grounding; in fact, they may be combined through recourse to a notion of primary and secondary causality. Option (3), however, is completely unacceptable to the homilist, who goes to great lengths to refute it. While options (1) and (2) are both positions of “some of the sages,” option (3) is merely the position of “others, who read with half-understanding and are not able to ascertain either God’s power or the scriptures for their own benefit.”¹²⁶ A third instance of the homilist’s recourse to school traditions is (3) the greater number of direct citations and differing use of citation formulae in De Sampsone. In De Jona there are only four scriptural citations and four citation formulae used by the homilist. In De Sampsone, by contrast, Siegert finds thirteen direct citations from the core text (De S. 1, 15, 16, 27, 30, 31, 39bis, 41bis, 42ter) and five citations of other texts (De S. 18bis [Exodus, uncertain], 24 [Isaiah], 25 [Genesis], 44 [Ecclesiastes]).¹²⁷ The number of citation formulae in De Sampsone, however, only rises to seven (De S. 18, 26, 27, 38, 39bis, 44), provided that one limits the count to include formulae which introduce scriptural citations or paraphrases. While the number of citation formulae does not increase dramatically, the use of these formulae, especially the ones which imitate the philosophical dia The observation that Philo’s Allegorical Commentary was based on questions and answers was made by Nikiprowetsky, “L’Exégèse de Philon d’Alexandrie.” For an analysis of Philo’s presentation of multiple views in his Allegorical Commentary, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 134– 35.  For the use of questions and answers among the anonymous colleagues of Demetrius, the Hellenistic Jewish historian, and the connection between this method and that of the Alexandrian scholars on Homer, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 40 – 41.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 65.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 37. The non-Jewish citation at the end of De S. 18 remains “rätselhafte” (Ibid.), but Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 62, n. 601, mentions an Armenian gloss relayed by Aucher, which would link this citation to Plato. The nearest Siegert can come to finding an appropriate locus in Plato, however, is Resp. 454d–456a.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

209

tribe, reveals an important difference in the tone of the two homilies. On the one hand, the homilist of De Jona cites scripture twice in a diatribal style (De J. 44 [“Have you not read in the Law?”] and 48 [“Just read your own prophecy”]),¹²⁸ a common mode of discourse in philosophical settings, but the questions are always directed at Jonah himself. In De J. 44, for example, the homilist addresses Jonah directly, commanding him to read the law and then citing Isaiah (cf. Gal 4:21– 31!). In De J. 48, God himself initiates the diatribe with Jonah, compelling the prophet to read his own prophecy and then interpreting it to him. This use of diatribe is suitable for a large, public homily, where the preacher might not know the congregation intimately. It does not assail the audience directly, but allows the divine challenge reach its hearers indirectly, through a self-imposed, vicarious association with the narrative’s wayward protagonist. In contrast to this reserved use of diatribal elements in De Jona, the three diatribal questions of De Sampsone (De S. 38: “Read what the Scripture says exactly”; De S. 39: “I will, as noted, bring in Scripture itself as a witness” [cf. Gal. 3:21, 30!]; ibid. “We want to hear it from Scripture itself”)¹²⁹ are spoken to an anonymous “hearer” (De S. 38), who turns out to be the preacher’s audience (De S. 39). Rather than incorporating the school diatribe into the homily indirectly, the preacher puts his audience in the dock. A fourth instance of school technique that appears in De Sampsone—but not in De Jona—is (4) the duplication of citations. In three instances in De Sampsone (De S. 15 – 16, 30 – 31, and 41– 42), the homilist, having cited and discussed a verse in one chapter, cites it again and gives a further or an alternative interpretation. This practice is clearly related to scholastic commentary. Siegert’s analysis of this phenomenon, as well as his account of its absence in De Jona, concisely summarizes its importance: Vor allem das wiederholte Aufgreifen derselben Schriftstelle in c. 15 f., 30 f. und 41 f. fällt gegenüber De J. auf als ein Element des theologischen Schulbetriebs. Aber vielleicht wollte der Prediger es bei De J. populärer machen; ein Mann seines Bildungsstandes hat mehrere Ausdrucksregister zur Verfügung.¹³⁰

Siegert connects the reduplication pattern with the schoolroom and observes that the absence of these techniques in De Jona was a matter of stylistic register and popularization, not a question of ability or authorship. He thus preserves the

 “Hast du nicht im Gesetz gelesen?”; “Lies nur deine eigene Prophetie.”  “Lies nun die Schrift genau”; “Ich [will], wie angekündigt, die Schrift selber als Zeugen anführen”; “Aus der Schrift selbst wollen wir es hören.”  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 37.

210

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

possibility that both homilies were indeed preached by the same person.¹³¹ Closely connected with this phenomenon of double citation is (5) the occurrence of the deictic “that is” or “that means” formula, used to clarify the meaning of a particular biblical citation. This practice appears in the two more scholastic homilies (De S. 16, 31, 42; cf. De J., Fr. [C]), but is lacking again in De Jona. Yet another exegetical practice employed by the homilist in De Sampsone is (6) the citation of two verses which appear to contradict each other and require further explication. This practice is similar, if not identical, to the later rabbinic middah ‫ שני כתובים‬and probably has its origins in the Alexandrian scholarly tradition of ἀπορήματα καὶ λύσεις, wherein apparent contradictions between two verses (usually within the same book) were identified and resolved (or in the case of the Homeric critics, emended).¹³² The homilist employs this technique twice: once highlighting the problem of Manoah’s inability to recognize the angel of the Lord, despite his wife providing him with that information ten verses earlier (De S. 11); and a second time, indicating the chronological discrepancy between Samson’s wife’s seven-day lament and her countrymen’s request for her help to solve Samson’s riddle, which was given on the fourth day of the festivities (De S. 38). One final exegetical characteristic of De Sampsone, and perhaps the most relevant for this study, is (7) the frequent occurrence and pronounced role of secondary lemmata. In De Jona, the homilist only makes use of two secondary lemmata, Isa 48:13 in De J. 44 and possibly Joel 1:14 in De J. 35. There may also be echoes of Exod 20:7 and Eccl 7:26 in De J. 4– 5, but an intentional reference in these cases is difficult to determine. In De Jona, the secondary lemmata are only tangentially related to the argument of the homily, even if they are derived from a liturgical connection in the reading cycle.¹³³ The situation is different in De Sampsone. In the first half of the sermon, the homilist makes two pointed contrasts between Samson’s parents and Abraham and Sarah, drawing on material from Gen 17:15 – 22 (De S. 7) and Gen 18:3 – 5 (De S. 14). In De S. 18, moreover, Manoah’s fear that he and Samson’s mother will die because they have seen the face of the Lord is appropriately cross-referenced to Exod 33:20 (!). In the second part of the homily, the homilist makes extensive use of Isa 11:2 (De S. 24– 25) and rounds the whole piece off with a citation of Eccl 10:8 (De S. 44) as a prooftext for Samson’s rightful seat among the sages.  Siegert, Drei Predigten I, 7.  Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 44.  For the connection between Jonah and Joel in the context of fasting, see m.Ta‘anith 2.1; cf. Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 29.

4.3 Ps.-Philo: De Jona and De Sampsone

211

The homilist’s use of secondary-level exegesis in De Sampsone contributes several things to this study of Pauline exegesis. First, many of the secondary lemmata are incorporated without the citation of a pericope or even a citation formula. The homilist’s use of Isa 11:2 in De S. 24 is especially interesting, as Isa 11:2 clearly plays an important role in the rhetorical formulation and structure of the homilist’s digression on the “gifts of the Spirit.” All the while, that text remains formally unheralded and its citation altered to fit the context. As such, this secondary lemma provides a partial analogue to Paul’s use of Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7– 18. A second parallel with Paul’s exegesis concerns the scriptural provenance and length of the two secondary lemmata drawn from Genesis in De Sampsone. Unlike his use of single-verse prophetic secondary lemmata in De J. 35, 44 and De S. 24, in De S. 7 and 14, the homilist introduces pentateuchal secondary lemmata of eight (Gen 17:15 – 22) and three verses (Gen 18:3 – 5), respectively. De S. 18, furthermore, in its use of Exod 33:20 as a secondary lemma, serves as evidence of the popularity of Mosaic digressions in homiletic discourse. As I will argue in chapter six of this study, it is precisely Exodus 33 to which Philo himself often turned when presenting Moses as a model of ethical transformation. Paul’s use of Exod 34:34 in 2 Cor 3:16 – 18 takes a cue from this tradition, but focuses on a different chapter of Exodus specifically chosen by Paul for his letter. These marks of the scholastic commentary tradition in De Sampsone, accompanied by the close sequential pattern of exegesis discovered in the De Jona fragment, also serve as positive indicators that Paul may indeed have followed a homiletic pattern of exegesis when he was dictating his exegesis of Exodus 34 to Timothy (2 Cor 1:1) or some other amanuensis.¹³⁴ The oral nature of letter dictation need not preclude Paul’s use of scholastic or homiletic patterns; rather, as the case of De Sampsone reveals, in the course of spontaneous oration or dictation, an exegete might have recourse to such schoolroom methods. The Schreibtischmysterium of Philo,¹³⁵ the homilies of Pseudo-Philo, and the letters of Paul thus form a kind of continuum of first-century biblical exegesis that share a common sequential exegetical impulse, albeit with differing degrees of textuality and orality.

 On the question of Paul’s co-senders and the oral context of letter dictation, see Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Co-Authorship in the Corinthian Correspondence,” RB 100 (1993): 562– 579, who postulates that Timothy played an important role in Paul’s dictation process in 2 Corinthians.  Siegert, Drei Predigten II, 9.

212

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

4.3.4 Conclusion This concludes my study of biblical exegesis in Jewish homilies. I turn now to the presence of textual commentary in contemporaneous Jewish treatises and GrecoRoman letters, both of which stand in closer generic proximity to 2 Corinthians than any text surveyed thus far (with the possible exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews). By definition, the exegeses in these texts are secondary-level, given that the primary level of discourse in both works is not exegetical. In both the Damascus Document and Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, we are concerned not only with the pattern of exegesis, but also with the way the authors integrate secondary level interpretations into non-commentary discourse. This latter question of integration will set the stage for chapter five, which addresses the secondary-level aspect of Paul’s exegesis and its role in the argument of his letter.

4.4 Commentary Traditions in the Damascus Document Amongst the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are many commentary and non-commentary works that have significance for Paul’s corpus. We have already seen, in the previous chapter, the importance of the thematic pesharim for mapping Paul’s patterns of exegesis.¹³⁶ The Damascus Document, however, outstrips the others in its relevance for understanding the rhetorical purpose of and theological aims of 2 Corinthians as a whole. The Damascus Document (hereafter D), like 2 Corinthians, is concerned with the theological and socio-political “construction of a New Covenant.”¹³⁷ Moreover, in both D and 2 Corinthians, commentary traditions are woven into a larger rhetorical discourse whose end is, broadly speaking, the formation of a new sec-

 In addition to the pesharim, the commentaries on Genesis, 4Q252– 4Q254a, are worth noting. For analyses of these texts, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” JJS 45 (1994): 1– 27; George J. Brooke, “The Commentary on Genesis A and the New Testament,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 177– 94; and idem, “The Genre of 4Q252: From Poetry to Pesher,” DSD 1 (1994): 160 – 79. Amongst noncommentary works, the so-called “Halakhic Letter,” 4QMMT, which includes a critical reference to “works of the law,” has had a major impact on the formulation of various “new perspectives” on Pauline theology.  For this phraseology, see particularly Thomas R. Blanton IV, Constructing a New Covenant: Discursive Strategies in the Damascus Document and Second Corinthians (WUNT 2.233; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). See also John J. Collins, “The New Covenant,” in idem, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 12– 51.

4.4 Commentary Traditions in the Damascus Document

213

tarian textual community in conversation with the Jewish scriptures.¹³⁸ In the following chapter, in which I will look afresh at the function of 2 Cor 3:7– 18 in its epistolary frame, I will consider the way that D uses and incorporates previously composed exegetical traditions into its rhetorical structure. For the time being, it will suffice to catalogue briefly the various commentary patterns appearing in this document. As this catalogue will attest, the pesher was not the only genre or method used by the Essenes. In the interest of time, I have chosen to focus primarily on the haggadic rather than halakhic patterns, as these are most relevant to this study.¹³⁹ (§1) CD-A 2.17– 3.12 The first noteworthy exegetical section of D is the admonitory catalogue of mighty heroes who have fallen or wandered from the paths of God. Included are the Watchers and the Nephilim (CD-A 2.17– 21), the sons of Noah (CD-A 3.1), the sons of Jacob (CD-A 3.4), the Israelites in Egypt (CD-A 3.5) and in the wilderness (CD-A 3.8), and the long line of Israelite kings (CD-A 3.9). In pattern and substance, this section resembles most closely 1 Cor 10:1– 11, and George Brooke categorizes it as “homiletic” in character.¹⁴⁰ None of the allusions, save perhaps the first account of the Watchers and the Nephilim, constitutes more than a passing engagement with the scriptural text and none of them demonstrates the particular kind of secondary-level exegesis that is most relevant to this study of 2 Cor 3:7– 18. (§2) CD-A 3.21– 4.4 Following close on the heels of this first haggadic section is a second passage describing those who remained steadfast in keeping God’s commandments despite Israel’s hypocrisy (CD-A 2.12). CD-A 3.21– 4.4 identifies the different members of this group with various priestly castes. In striking juxtaposition to the preceding allusive catalogue, the author here engages in an “atomizing” exegesis of a single prophetic verse, Ezek 44:15. The subsequent

 Of course, both documents employ quite different “discursive strategies”: D is comprised of an Admonition and Laws (see Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts [Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000], 16) and the Teacher’s authority does not seem to be under question from within the community. Second Corinthians, by contrast, is a composite epistolary apology for the apostle(s) by whose authority the community was founded. This is to say nothing of the different soteriological horizons of each document.  For a comprehensive study of the use of scripture in the Admonition, see Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1 – 8, 19 – 20 (BZAW 228; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995). For a study of some halakhic exegesis in D, see especially Michael Fishbane, “Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. J. Mulder; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004 [1988]), 342– 77; and Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 14– 23.  See George J. Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and in the New Testament,” The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 60 – 73, esp. 68.

214

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

commentary on the verse offers a brief, threefold deictic exegesis, similar to that found in the continuous pesharim, identifying “the priests,” “the Levites,” and “the sons of Zadok,” with various figures in the sectarian past and present. No secondary lemma is adduced. (§3) CD-A 4.12 – 5.19 In contrast, CD 4.12– 4.19a offers a prophetic interpretation of Isa 24:17 that draws on several secondary lemmata to elaborate its argument. As such, its pattern reflects more closely thematic pesharim like 11QMelchizedek. Here, the commentator interprets Isaiah’s alliterative “panic, pit, and net” (‫ )פחד ופחת ופח‬as Belial’s three nets (‫)מצודות‬, which he identifies as (1) fornication (‫( ;)זנות‬2) wealth (‫ ;)הון‬and (3) defilement of the temple (‫)טמא המקדש‬. It is widely agreed that the redactor of D intended the exegesis of Isa 24:17 to provide taxonomical genera of halakhic disobedience, under which specific accusations could be grouped. The language of the pesher is thus echoed in the immediately following section (CD 4.19b – 5.15a), as the three nets are interpreted in light of sectarian halakhah. Despite these basic agreements, scholars differ in their explanations of how the redactor uses and harmonizes the three categories with the subsequent prohibitions. While we probably do have to reckon with some amount of source-critical accretion and development in CD 4.19b – 5.15a, the structure of the prohibitions does reflect the prior threefold division of the nets in the foregoing exegesis. (1) CD 4.19b – 6a reflects the first net: fornication (‫)זנות‬. While polygamy may be the prohibited practice, the masculine pronoun in the phrase “in their lives” (‫ )בחייהם‬makes it possible that remarriage is also in view.¹⁴¹ (2) CD 5.6b – 11a accuses those who defile the temple (‫וגם מטמאים הם את המקדש‬, CD 5.6b) and (3) CD 5.11b – 12a accuses those who defile their holy spirit (‫וגם את רוח‬ ‫קדשיהם טמאו‬, CD 5.11b). Each of the second two “nets” is introduced by the conjunctive phrase ‫וגם‬. Moreover, each of these three sections begins with a specific lexical connection to the definition of the nets from the pesher on Isa 24:17. The simplicity of this structure at once belies its artificiality. Only two of the three nets are used and the second is repeated. Furthermore, Michael Knibb is probably right in enumerating at least four primary transgressions: (1) polygamy/remarriage, (2) defilement of the sanctuary (by way of intercourse with a menstruating woman), (3) illicit degrees of kinship in marriage, (4) and defiling the holy spirit through blasphemy/apostasy from the renewed covenant.¹⁴² While

 For polygamy, see Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (CCWJCW 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 41. For remarriage, see Collins, Beyond, 17, note 18; and the discussion in Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: JPS, 1994), 130.  Knibb, Qumran Community, 41, according to Campbell, Use of Scripture, 117, lists “polygamy, defilement of the sanctuary, niece-marriage, and rendering unclean one’s holy spirit.”

4.4 Commentary Traditions in the Damascus Document

215

(1) and (3) pertain to fornication, (2) and (4) invoke the language of defiling. The twofold fornication of CD 4.20 (‫ )הם ניתפשים בשתים בזנות‬is thus artfully interlaced with a twofold defilement. (§4) CD-A 6.3 – 11 Just as the first two sections above moved from negative exempla of the Watchers et alii in (§1) CD-A 2.17– 3.12 to the interpretation of the sectarian history of obedience in (§2) CD-A 3.21– 4.4, so here, after discussing those who have fallen victim to the nets of Belial in (§3) CD-A 4.12– 5.19, the redactor of D turns again in (§4) CD-A 6.3 – 11 to tell the history of the Essenes, this time by way of interpreting Num 21:18. This famous passage is often called the “well midrash.” Similarly, just as the three priestly groups of Ezek 44:15 were interpreted by means of deictic assertion in (§2) CD-A 3.21– 4.4, so here the author interprets Num 21:18 by giving eschatological significance to (i) “the well”; (ii) “those who dug”/“princes”; (iii) “the staff”; (iv) “the nobles of the people.” While (iii) “the staff” and (iv) “the nobles of the people” are treated out of biblical sequence, the author precedes in an otherwise sequential fashion through the scriptural elements that he interprets. Further distinguishing (§4) CD-A 6.3 – 11 from (§2) CD-A 3.21– 4.4 is the use of Isa 54:16 as a secondary lemma in the discussion of (iii) the staff. Thus the two sections, while exegetically and rhetorically similar, exhibit distinctive characteristics. (§5) CD-A 7.6 – 21 This section is arguably the most textually complicated exegetical section of D, since the two Cairo Geniza recensions (CD-A and CD-B) preserve different versions, which are not easily reconciled.¹⁴³ The best case can be made for the originality of the Isaiah/Amos/Numbers tradition of CD-A, since the same tradition has been confirmed in the Qumran versions of D.¹⁴⁴ The passage begins by expounding the pattern of life for those who “reside in the camps” (CD-A 7.6). Num 30:17 is cited to indicate the kind of ordered life an Essene family should follow. Isa 7:17 (CD-A 7.11– 12) follows as an indication of the kind of punishment that will befall those who do not walk according to Num 30:17. The phrase “since the day Ephraim departed from Judah” (Isa 7:17) simultaneously introduces a digression on the history of the community. Isa 7:17 thus appears to function as a primary lemma. It is not interpreted in the typical deictic fashion, but is understood to present the paradigmatic scenario of the sectarian flight from Jerusalem. Amos 5:26 – 27 is introduced as a secondary lemma, largely on thematic grounds. It is the secondary lemma that becomes the object of intense atomistic

 See Hempel, Damascus Texts, 77– 79, for a good summary of positions on the subject.  See 4QDa 3 iii–iv and John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 82.

216

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

scrutiny, and four elements from this text, (i) “the Sikkut of your King”; (ii) “the King”; (iii) “the Kiyyun of your images”; and (iv) “Damascus” receive sequential interpretation (cf. the similarity with Philo, Gig. 32– 47). (i) “The Sikkut of your King” is interpreted as the “books of the Law” with the assistance of a tertiary lemma, Amos 9:11. Damascus itself (iv) is never identified, but Num 24:17 is introduced, again as a tertiary lemma, to interpret “the star … who will come to Damascus.” The reference to Num 24:17, however, looks like an addition or remnant of an earlier tradition, given that nothing in the text calls for an interpretation of the star in CD-A 7.18. It has probably been appended here because the author relates it to Damascus, the final element of the secondary lemma (Amos 5:26 – 27). The shape of the Essene communal narrative, rather than the text of Amos 5:26 – 27, thus governs the Isaiah/ Amos/Numbers exegesis in its final form in CD-A. Despite the redactional seams which inelegantly show through the final composition here, all three major texts, primary (Isa 7:17), secondary (Amos 5:26 – 27), and tertiary (Num 24:17), form a natural cluster on the basis of their common description of historic scenes of departure from Jerusalem. Ephraim’s departure from Judah (‫ ;)מעל יהודה‬the departure of the Sikkut and the Kiyyun from God’s tent (‫ ;)מאהלי‬and the movement of the scepter and the star out of Jacob (‫ )מיעקב‬and Israel (‫ )מישראל‬respectively portray in nuce the definitive elements of the sectarian narrative of (1) flight (halakhically, physically) from Jerusalem, of (2) God’s removal from the temple, and of (3) present and future salvation through the departure of an authoritative teacher and the coming of an eschatological avenger. (§6) CD-B 19.2 – 11 The parallel locus in the second major Cairo Geniza copy of D preserves a different sequence of biblical lemmata. It begins, again, with a stipulation about those who live in the camps, accompanied by the citation of Num 30:17. Those who depart from this rule, however, are not cursed with Isa 7:17. Rather, in CD-B 19.7, the author invokes Zech 13:7, the song of the sword, which will arise to cut off both despising shepherd and people. He then cites Zech 11:11, which speaks of “the poor ones” and identifies them as those who revere God. These, CD-B goes on to say, will be saved from the sword. The two texts are not hierarchically related, in that one is adduced to help interpret the other. Both, rather, stand on equal footing, “enchained” rather than subordinated in the service of telling the sectarian narrative. This apparently ends the exegesis of the B text, since at CD-B 19.10 the argument rejoins CD-A 7.21b.¹⁴⁵

 Many commentators extend the pericope here through CD-B 19.14, which includes a quota-

4.4 Commentary Traditions in the Damascus Document

217

At this point, I have only begun to scratch the surface of this very challenging locus in D. Many problems remain, including the possibility that neither CDA nor CD-B retain the original exegesis that appeared in D.¹⁴⁶ This is not the place to trace further the origins of the fascinating tradition preserved in (§4) CD-A 7.6 – 21 nor to speculate on how the original form of the Essene exegesis might be recreated by combining elements of CD-A and CD-B. A comparison of the two texts as they stand, however, does yield one important datum. The subordination of secondary and tertiary lemma in CD-A and the development of a secondary lemma into a full-blown discourse stands out as a relatively unusual feature within the Damascus Document. The enchainment of several texts in CDB, to the contrary, where a catena of primary lemmata are all expounded together, reflects the more typical pattern, found also in the pesharim. Each reflects a kind of secondary-level exegesis within the document as a whole. (§7) CD-A 10.16 – 11.2 One further instance of an “implicit” secondary-level exegesis, which occurs in the course of some halakhic (rather than haggadic) exegesis in D, ought to be mentioned here. I am referring to the implicit use of Isa 58:13 – 14 to help interpret the Sabbath prohibition of Deut 5:12 in CD-A 10.16 – 11.2. The presence of such an implicit use of Isa 58:13 – 14 was first noticed by Eliezar Slomovic and has been reemphasized recently by George Brooke.¹⁴⁷ The passage warrants mention because it attests a different kind of secondary lemma than we have yet encountered in D, one which bears some superficial similarities to the use of Isa 61:1– 2 in 11QMelchizedek. The differences between these two instances of implicit exegesis, however, are as striking as are the convergences. First, Slomovic clearly overstates the case in suggesting that Isa 58:13 – 14 forms the organizing principle of the entire pericope. As Michael Fishbane notes, this halakhic section in fact extends far beyond CD-A 11.2 (CD-A 11.19!), where the echoes of Isa 58:13 – 14 seem to fall short.¹⁴⁸ More importantly,

tion from Ezek 9:4, and thus speak of a “Zechariah-Ezekiel midrash.” It is not my aim here to dispute the proper boundaries of the pericope, only to note that, by way of structural comparison, the place occupied by the Isaiah-Amos-Numbers exegesis in CD-A is, in CD-B, occupied by an interpretation of two verses of Zechariah. Both Ezek 9:4 and Hos 5:10 are “plusses” in the CDB version, but these are inserted in the subsequent section. Their relation to the exegesis of Zechariah should thus be seen, again, as one of enchainment rather than subordination and does not significantly affect the analysis presented here.  See Hempel, Damascus Texts, 77– 79.  Eliezar Slomovic, “Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ (1969): 3 – 15, esp. 11– 13; and Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation,” 235 – 254.  See Fishbane, “Mikra at Qumran,” 348 – 49, 368 – 70, esp. 370 on the relationship between the Torah citations and Isa 58:13.

218

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Isa 58:13 is not treated sequentially, as was the case in 11QMelchizedek. The use of an implicit secondary lemma in a series of Sabbath prescriptions nonetheless demonstrates how a halakhic passage in D might interweave texts from Torah and the prophets in a secondary-level exegesis.

4.4.1 Conclusion The foregoing seven examples attest to the range and variety of commentary traditions present in D. As the analyses show, many of these exegetical passages exhibit a high degree of exegetical sophistication and appear to have a literary prehistory. Their redaction into the present context demonstrates how the author of D shapes his sectarian narrative with the help of his community’s interpretations of scripture. Most importantly, these secondary-level exegeses do not follow a single pattern. Paul, too, as we have seen, draws on a range of interpretative traditions and patterns in various exegetical parts of his letters. Although Paul’s precise pattern in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 was not discovered in D, the Damascus Document nonetheless provides an important literary precedent for the Jewish incorporation of commentary traditions (in this case, at least one explicit pesher) into non-commentary literature.

4.5 Commentary Tradition in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium There is one literary genre left to examine to make this survey complete, namely, the Greco-Roman letter.¹⁴⁹ 2 Corinthians is, after all, a letter rather than a treatise. If the thesis that Paul has incorporated commentary tradition in 2 Corinthians is to be credible, it would help to find a similar phenomenon somewhere within the epistolary corpora from the first century. That evidence appears in Lucius Annaeus Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. ¹⁵⁰

 For letters vs. epistles in the New Testament, see Adolf Deissmann and Lionel Strachan, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Greco-Roman World (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910); but cf. Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).  By choosing a parallel from the Greco-Roman epistolary corpus rather than the less wellknown body of Hellenistic- and Roman-Jewish letters (insofar as this distinction is a meaningful one), I do not mean to downplay the significance of Jewish letters for the study of Paul. As Luz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (WUNT 298; Tübin-

4.5 Commentary Tradition in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium

219

Certain similarities between Seneca (1 B.C.E – 65 C.E.) and his rough contemporary Paul, as well as between the epistolary corpora of both men, have been recognized since antiquity.¹⁵¹ Although the purported audiences of their epistles differed, with Paul writing to entire churches, on the one hand, and Seneca addressing his letters to the lone Lucilius, on the other, both men used the public epistle (and there is good reason to believe that Seneca never intended his letters to remain private) as a means of communal moral psychagogy, whether Stoic or Christian.¹⁵² So similar did their respective corpora and political careers appear in antiquity (both men were executed under Nero) that Jerome knows a fictitious set of Latin letters between Paul and Seneca. In Epistle 6 of this charming correspondence, Lucilius is even styled as Seneca’s Timothy.¹⁵³ Hans Dieter Betz’s crit-

gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 12, has recently pointed out, there are “letters in the NT that are even closer to Jewish letters to the Diaspora than Paul’s letters – judged by their formal elements, their communicative setting, their contents and / or their pragmatic purpose – namely the Catholic Epistles, particularly James and 1 Peter, as well as the letter in Acts 15:23 – 29 containing the Apostolic Decree.” Franz Kobler, Letters of the Jews through the Ages: From Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century: Edited with an Introduction, Biographical Notes and Historical Comments (2 vols.; London: Ararat Publishing Society, 1952), 1:xlv, is surely right in concluding that Paul “brought about a new synthesis of Judaic values with Greek thought and the Hellenic art of letter-writing.” Hence, the choice of Seneca is not out of place.  For the dates, see Harold Tarrant, Plato’s First Interpreters (London: Duckworth, 2000), 80.  There is significant debate as to the historicity of the correspondence between Seneca and Lucilius. The position of James Ker, The Deaths of Seneca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 149, that “we lack details about the degree of the letters’ fictionality and the form in which they first circulated,” is a balanced statement of current consensus position. Early on, Eugène Albertini, La composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de Sénèque (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1923) argued for historicity. His position is refuted by Hildegard Cancik, Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Spudasmata 18; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), who takes a much more skeptical view, arguing that “die Situation des Lucilius … ist kein Ansatzpunkt, um hinter den Text ‘zurückzufragen’, sondern ein literarisches Element der Epistel” (Ibid. 72– 73). In a similar vein, Donald A. Russell, “Letters to Lucilius,” in Seneca (ed. C. D. N. Costa; GLSCLI; London: Routledge, 1974), 70 – 95, esp. 75, argues that “Seneca writes to an alter ego” and in Ibid., 78, that “Lucilius’s personality helped to determine what the book was like; but it was not an actual correspondence.” Charles D. N. Costa, Seneca: 17 Epistles (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1988), 2, poses a kind of middle ground in which the collection is on the whole conceived as a literary production, while allowing that “genuine consolation was offered to Lucilius at times of trouble.” For further bibliography on this subject, see Ker, Deaths, 149, notes 9 and 10.  For the Latin text with French translation, see Sénèque et Saint Paul: Lettres (trans. Paul Aizpurua; Paris: Gallimard, 2000). The critical text is that of Friedrich Haase, ed., L. Annaei Senecae opera quae supersunt (4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1902), vol. 4 (Supplementum). See further Claude W. Barlow, ed., Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam (Horn, Austria: American Academy in Rome, 1938); Laura Bocciolini Palagi, Il Carteggio Apocrifo di Seneca e San

220

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

ical estimation of this fictional correspondence is well worth repeating: the conceit is brilliant, but the letters are terrible.¹⁵⁴ The epistle I have chosen to exemplify Seneca’s use of the commentary tradition is Epistula 58, which includes one of Seneca’s two lengthier discussions of Plato’s oeuvre—in particular, Plato’s categories of existence.¹⁵⁵ I will first present an outline of the letter and then treat the first two sections.

4.5.1 Epistula 58 Epistula 58 can be conveniently divided into three major sections, shown in Table 4.8 below.¹⁵⁶ In what follows, I will treat the first two sections, which comprise the letter’s introduction, its philosophical core, and use of a commentary tradition. I leave the third section for the following chapter, in which I discuss at length the function and redaction of commentary traditions in non-commentary literature and the light these techniques shed on the rhetorical unity of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6. Table 4.8: Structure of Seneca’s Epistula 58 Epistula . –  Epistula . –  Epistula . – 

Latin lexicography and its philosophical deficiency Plato’s categories of existence Ontology, ethics, and Plato as a moral paradigm

4.5.1.1 Ep. 58.1 – 7: Latin Lexicography and Its Philosophical Deficiency In Ep. 58.1– 7, following his typical greeting (Seneca Lucilio suo salutem), Seneca begins with a playful autobiographical anecdote of a recent (hodierno die) dis-

Paolo: Introduzione, Testo, Commento (Studi Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere La Colombaria, 46; Firenze: Olschki, 1978).  Keynote Lecture, Society of Biblical Literature Midwest Regional Meeting, February 2014, Bourbonnais, Illinois.  The second is Epistula 65; that Seneca discusses a different number of ontological categories in each letter further supports Tarrant’s suggestion of dependence on a commentary tradition.  I use here the Oxford critical text and numbering of L. D. Reynolds, ed., L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). For a more nuanced analysis of this letter into eight parts, see Brad Inwood, Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 111.

4.5 Commentary Tradition in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium

221

cussion about Plato, which calls to mind the lexical poverty, indeed the lexical indigence (paupertas, immo egestas),¹⁵⁷ of the Latin language. After discussing the lexical curiosities surrounding three Latin words in Vergil’s corpus (asilum, cernere [for decernere], and the form iusso [for iussero]) in Ep. 58.2– 4, Seneca turns to Latin’s wanting philosophical thesaurus in Ep. 58.5 – 7. Here, he takes up two Greek terms which are clearly important in the reception of Plato’s ontology in the Timaeus: οὐσία (Ep. 58.6) and τὸ ὄν (Ep. 58.7). Both terms have no direct equivalent in Classical Latin, and as such require various lexical neologisms or other circumlocutions. Seneca’s discussion of both of these terms not only illustrates his own careful engagement with the Platonic tradition at the lexical level, but also sets the stage for the central part of the letter which entails a discussion of Plato’s ontology (Ep. 58.8 – 24). The first Greek term, οὐσία, had a clear Latin equivalent in Seneca’s time: essentia. Seneca’s problem seems to be not that the word did not exist, but that it was considered largely an unbecoming neologism, particularly in the context of Latin Platonism and Stoicism. Seneca’s anxiety about using the term essentia appears, moreover, to stem from a Ciceronian problem. While Cicero himself is Seneca’s source for this word (Ciceronem auctorem huius verbi habeo),¹⁵⁸ nowhere in Cicero’s Latin translation of the Timaeus does Cicero render Plato’s οὐσία with essentia. ¹⁵⁹ Twice, Cicero renders it instead with the Latin materia (Tim. 35a2, Tim. 37a5) and, in the other extant instance, seemingly with aeternitas (Tim. 29c3).¹⁶⁰ If Cicero is thus Seneca’s authority for the neologism, Cicero himself remains uncomfortable introducing the word into a philosophical translation. While Seneca’s discussion of οὐσία sets the stage broadly in Ep. 58.6 for his upcoming discussion of Platonic categories, his turn to τὸ ὄν in Ep. 58.7 tightens his focus on Tim. 27d6, the text which, Harold Tarrant claims, stands as the base of the commentary tradition in the second, major part of the letter. Unlike οὐσία, τὸ ὄν actually poses a linguistic problem for Seneca owing to the absence of

 Seneca, Ep. 58.1.  Seneca, Ep. 58.6.  οὐσία occurs a total of five times in the Timaeus (20a2, 29c3, 35a2, 37a5, and 37e5); its importance in philosophical discussion of this text, however, no doubt heightened over the intervening centuries as Middle-Platonists and Stoics developed their philosophical vocabulary through commentaries and treatises. Inwood, Seneca, 113 argues that the form is unattested in Cicero. Reynolds’ critical edition, however, seems to suggest that the word does exist in a Ciceronian fragment: Cic. frg. Inc. K. 10 p.412 Mueller.  For the Latin text of Cicero’s Timaeus, see Remo Giomini, ed., M. Tulii Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manserunt Omnia: De Divinatione, De Fato, Timaeus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1975).

222

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

both a present participle for the verb sum, esse in Classical Latin,¹⁶¹ as well as the lack of a definite article in Latin. Seneca’s preferred rendering of the Greek attributive participle with the Latin relative quod est (Ep. 58.7), while completely natural, looks again to betray knowledge of Cicero’s translation of the Greek of Tim. 27d6 (τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον), Quid est quod semper sit neque ullum habeat ortum. While clearly echoing Cicero’s relative formulation, Seneca (or the tradition he reflects) has nonetheless rendered the clause grammatically closer to the Greek by metathesizing Cicero’s semper sit and opting for the ontologically robust indicative (est) over the ontologically problematical subjunctive (sit). This second of his two major lexical discussions thus naturally paves the way into the subsequent discussion of Platonic categories.

4.5.1.2 Ep. 58.8 – 24: Plato’s Categories of Existence A detailed examination of the philosophical core of the letter is not required in the current context. It will suffice to demonstrate that Seneca both references a Platonic text and interprets it through a commentary tradition. A straightforward reading of this section instantly reveals that Seneca’s enumeration of Plato’s categories in Ep. 58.8 – 24 goes far beyond Plato’s discussion of “being” and “becoming” in Tim. 27d6 ff. Rather, as Tarrant claims, the text reflects both developments of Platonic ontology—mirrored, among other places, in the writings of Aetius¹⁶²—as well as Aristotelian categories.¹⁶³ Tarrant observes that “in [Epistle] 58 we meet an account of Plato’s alleged six-fold ‘division’ of ‘what is,’ most easily seen as deriving (with the acknowledged help of his servant Amicus, 58.8) from a commentary or other interpretative exercise on Timaeus 27d6 (‘What is that which is always … ?’).”¹⁶⁴

 Seneca apparently does not know the neologism ens, which Quintilian 8.3.33 attributes to a Sergius Plautus of unknown date. See Inwood, Seneca, 113.  Tarrant, Plato’s First Interpreters, 81.  See Seneca, Ep. 58.9 and the commentary in Inwood, Seneca, 115: “The claim that ‘being is said in many ways’ is fundamental to Aristotle’s basic approach to ontology. It is hard, then, to repress the thought that this presentation of Platonic ontology is mediated by familiarity with Aristotle’s metaphysics and by at least a passive conviction that Aristotle’s method in metaphysics is compatible with Platonism.”  Tarrant, Plato’s First Interpreters, 80 – 81. Inwood, Seneca, 115, remains more aporetic on the question of whether Seneca used a written source or learned such an elaboration orally: “Speculation about the source of such a mediating influence is characteristic of most scholarship on this letter, but such speculation has proven to be indecisive and it seems less profitable than a simply acknowledgement that an interesting form of philosophical fusion (involving Stoicism, Platonism, and Aristotelian ideas) is in play.” One might say that the situation in Seneca

4.6 Conclusion

223

Seneca’s redeployment of a commentary tradition in the context of a psychagogic letter furnishes the capstone to the foregoing argument and ends our current quest. Seneca provides the contextual proof that a first century GrecoRoman letter outside of Jewish circles might find place not merely for popular exegeses, like those found in speeches or homilies, but also for more learned commentary traditions. That Seneca and Paul draw on different kinds of commentary traditions is, in this case, not an issue. One should expect that a Stoic and a Jew would not turn to exactly the same textual authorities in composing their respective letters. But turn to their traditions they do, each drawing on his advanced education and training to give his letter a theological or philosophical depth that transforms his chosen genre from a mere communicative tool into a reflective political exhortation to a textual community.

4.6 Conclusion The scope of this chapter has been admittedly somewhat large, and it now falls to me to make some summary statements. If the task was to demonstrate that commentary as a function happens outside the commentary genre, then the witness of homilies, Gospels, historiography, treatises, and the Greco-Roman letter all confirm this hypothesis. Schironi is thus proved right that no picture of the commentary tradition in Greek and Latin can be ascertained if one adheres to rigid generic boundaries. The corollary of this conclusion is that formal exegesis was also highly adaptable, and could be used and redeployed in a variety of other rhetorical and generic situations. Of particular interest for this study is the number and variety of sub-species of what I have called secondary-level exegesis, whether in homilies or in the non-commentary genres. This turn to the text, often entailing a kind of digressive poetics, was an authorial move applied across the board, whether one wanted to amplify one’s exegesis of a different, primary text (as, say, in De Sampsone), add color and exegetical verisimilitude to a narrative (such as Acts or John), or add an authoritative digression or diversion within a non-exegetical text whose aim is to craft a textual community (such as Hebrews,

is quite similar to 2 Cor 3:7– 18, where a similar debate exists over Paul’s use of sources. (1) That a commentary tradition or pattern, broadly construed, was utilized by both authors, known either directly or indirectly from their own education or experience, and (2) that their exegeses do not proceed simply from the text alone (be it from Plato or Moses) seem to this author to be beyond dispute.

224

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

the Damascus Document, and, on the communal interpretation of his letters, Seneca). It is particularly the digressive aspect of these secondary-level exegeses that promises to shed new light on 2 Corinthians. As I mentioned in the introduction to this study, the traditional character of Paul’s excursus on Exodus in 2 Cor 3:7– 18 has led many to suggest its source-critical origin in a previous composition, as well as its extraneity to Paul’s argument. The evidence in this chapter suggests that such a hypothesis is not necessary, and indeed, bears the burden of proof. It suggests instead that ancient letter writers and commentators intentionally utilized digressive aesthetics in their argumentation: surely Paul is no exception on this score. This chapter has also collected an arsenal of comparative material by which to study the digressive aesthetics of secondary-level exegeses more broadly. In the subsequent chapter (five), I return to this data-set, in hopes of better understanding the digressive role of Paul’s exegesis within the broader argument of 2 Cor 2:14– 7:4. One final fruit of the foregoing study is the recognition of Moses as a subject of secondary-level exegeses within the various texts that were studied. In particular, Philo, Hebrews, John, De Sampsone, and the Damascus Document all attest to the importance of Moses within Jewish ethical and salvation-historical discourses. Paul’s extended exegesis of a Mosaic pericope in 2 Corinthians surely belongs among these texts. After a discussion of the digressive aesthetics of Paul’s epistolary exegesis in chapter five, I will turn in chapter six to an assessment of Paul’s chosen theme, namely, Moses’ glorious descent from Sinai and entry into the tent of meeting.

4.7 Additional Table

4.7 Additional Table Table 4.9: Synopsis of Hebrews 3:12 – 4:11 and LXX Ps 94:7d – 11

225

226

4. Secondary-Level Exegesis

Part Three: Lifting the Veil: The Rhetorical Function and Theological Purpose of Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus 34

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification Τί δὲ τἆλλα; οὐ χύδην δοκεῖ βεβλῆσθαι τὰ τοῦ λόγου; And what about the other things? Doesn’t he seem to have hurled together the parts of the speech at random? ~Plato, Phaedrus 264b

5.1 Introduction As an epigraph to this chapter, I have appended Socrates’ criticism of the unity of Lysias’s written speech from the Phaedrus. This charge has been raised against Paul or the redactor of 2 Corinthians by certain critics as well. Even if our canonical letter turns out to be a relatively more discriminating compilation of two, three, five, or even more letters into a kind of patchwork epistle,¹ the precise shape and rhetorical aims of the final composition remains something of a puzzle and judging what is its head and what is its foot, let alone whether or to what degree it possesses that organic, somatic unity that Plato requires of all speeches, persists as an issue of scholarly debate.² Clearly this chapter cannot address the various proposals regarding the unity or disunity of 2 Corinthians in its final canonical form. Nonetheless, what pertains to the whole also pertains to the parts—and in the case of 2 Cor 3:7–18, it has been my concern from the beginning to address the question of the rhetorical “fit” of Paul’s exegesis of Exodus in its current location in the letter. Is it, as Hans Windisch suggests, a kind of “literary padding” (eine literarische Einlage) whose contents could “easily be removed without doing damage to the coherence of the letter,”³ thus rendering Paul open to Socrates’ charge against Lysias? Or, as other scholars like Schultz, Georgi, Winter, and Van Kooten

 For a discussion of the various partition theories of 2 Corinthians, see the note in section 2.4 above.  Phaedr. 264c: “But I think you would say this, that it is necessary for every speech to hold together as a living animal, having a kind of body of its own, so that it is neither headless nor footless, but has a middle and extremities, with each written part befitting the others and the parts befitting the whole.” For a discussion of this subject in Plato’s dialogues, see Heath, “Unity” and “Postscript.”  Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 112. Cf. Windisch’s qualifying statement on p. 131 that “it can be clearly concluded from 3:4–6 and 4:1–6 that the excursus [3:7–18] is occasioned by apologetic motives.”

230

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

have argued, do the form and digressive nature of Paul’s exegesis point to its origins with his opponents?⁴ Against such views, a proper appreciation of Paul’s employment of secondary-level exegesis reveals that 2 Cor 3:7–18, while certainly an excursus of sorts, fits well within the stylistic parameters expected for ancient literary unity and constitutes a completely licit digression. To argue this case, I take as my starting point the digressive aesthetic of several secondary-level exegeses, including instances drawn from Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Damascus Document, and Seneca’s Epistulae morales. Using these texts as guides, I will demonstrate how ancient authors engaged in exegetical digressions for the sake of rhetorical and theological amplification. Discussing the digressive poetics of each of these four texts will lead naturally to a comparison with Paul’s letter and will demonstrate how reading 2 Cor 3:7–18 in light these other exegetical excursuses improves our understanding of the rhetorical function of the pericope. This rhetorical analysis will lead, in the conclusion of this chapter, to some preliminary remarks on the nature of Paul’s opposition in Corinth and the purpose of his apology more broadly. These contextual notes, in turn, raise afresh the question of unity, albeit from a different angle. The question becomes not one of source-critical or rhetorical unity but of thematic integrity and originality, and asks to what degree Paul’s exegesis reflects the thought, theology, and traditions of his opponents rather than his own. This final question cannot be answered solely on the basis of rhetorical criticism, but will require a comparative study of the theology of Paul’s use of Moses traditions. This, in turn, will be taken up in chapter six.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame: Exegetical Excursus in Commentary, Homily, Treatise, and Epistle 5.2.1 Introduction My investigation of exegetical digressions in this chapter will proceed in four stages. First, I will look at the digressive function of Philo’s expositions of secondary lemmata in his commentaries. Next, I will turn to Heb 3:7–4:11 and its rhetorical function as an amplification of the Moses-Christ synkrisis of Heb 3:1–6. Third, I will assess the rhetorical function of exegetical passages in the Damas See chapter one.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

231

cus Document. Fourth, I will look at the function of exegetical amplification in Greco-Roman letters, particularly in Seneca’s Epistulae morales. Each study of exegetical amplification is followed by an analysis of 2 Cor 3:7–18, considering Paul’s epistolary frame, 2 Cor 2:14–3:6 and 4:1–6.

5.2.2 Secondary Lemmata and Philonic Exegetical Poetics In considering the “digressive” function of secondary lemmata in Philo’s oeuvre, it is necessary to begin with the question of the literary unity of his treatises more broadly, particularly those of the Allegorical Commentary. Unlike the treatises of Plutarch’s Moralia, which usually possess a clear skopos, Philo’s allegorical treatises are exegetically rather than topically centered. While this does not mean that Philo has not also employed a thematic principle in composing each work, exegesis, nonetheless, provides the structural skeleton. Philonic scholars disagree widely about the degree of thematic unity in any given treatise. In two general studies of Philo’s exegesis in the Allegorical Commentary published in the 1980s,⁵ David Runia offers a helpful synopsis of views on this subject. Amongst the figures on the “unitive” side of the debate, Jacques Cazeaux and Roberto Radice stand out as arguing broadly in favor of Philo’s thematic unity.⁶ For both of these scholars, “there are strictly speaking no digressions in the allegorical treatises.”⁷ On the other side of this question stands the towering figure of Valentin Nikiprowetsky, who denied that the treatises possessed thematic unity: The coherence which Nikiprowetzky discovers is that of a structure based on a sequence of questions and answers, not that of a total integration of countless exegetical themes into a complex tapestry of meaning. The existence of the latter kind of coherence is denied in the strongest terms, because the various questions and answers are for the most part seen as quite independent of each other.⁸

Runia, for his part, adopts a kind of mediating stance between the extremes of Cazeaux and Nikiprowetzky. While granting some ground to the unified view, Runia ultimately concludes that Radice “goes too far” and posits instead

 Runia, “Structure”; and idem, “Further Observations.”  See Cazeaux, La Trame et la Chaîne; Roberto Radice and Claudio Mazzarelli, Filone di Alessandria: le Origini del Male (I Classici del Pensiero; Milan: Rusconi, 1984).  Runia, “Further Observations,” 110.  Runia, “Structure,” 229. See Nikiprowetzky, Le Commentaire de l’Écriture.

232

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

a kind of “total coherence”⁹ or “loose unity”¹⁰ for each treatise, one which, nonetheless, can be fruitfully examined at the level of the individual “chapter,” which possesses an independent structural coherence. Runia, in my estimation, represents a welcome corrective to the extreme unitarian view, maintaining that Philo’s treatises do not always evince a clear thematic unity overall. On the other hand, certain similarities between Philo’s treatises and the exegetic monograph (σύγγραμμα)—a possibility raised in light of Schironi’s study¹¹—and their differences from a textual commentary pure and simple (ὑπόμνημα), like the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, need also to be kept in mind. But what can be said of the unity of the individual “chapter?” A “chapter,” according to Nikiprowetzky’s classic definition, constitutes a question and answer posed to a primary textual lemma, within which secondary lemmata may be concatenated or subordinated.¹² Prima facie, it would seem that each chapter should possess a degree of thematic unity far greater than the treatise as a whole, and this is, in fact, the case. So Runia concludes, “Philo produces … a strongly concatenated exegetical structure, for each transition is either explicitly motivated or its motivation is easily perceived by the reader. Only when a return is made to the main biblical text does a clear break occur.”¹³ In this statement, however, Runia overplays the transparency of transitions within the Philonic chapter. Even when transitions to a concatenated passage are clearly marked, it still remains the reader’s task to determine the precise relationship between the particularities of the secondary lemma and the particularities of the primary lemma. In this respect, one must take into consideration not only the extremely detailed nature of Philo’s exegesis of secondary lemmata but also their potential derivation from independent sources. These two features in particular render Philo’s secondary “amplifications” potentially digressive.

 Runia, “Further Observations,” 125.  Ibid., 129.  Schironi, “Greek Commentaries,” 407, 428–9. I am not suggesting that Philo’s exegetical pattern in the Allegorical Commentary is closer to the pattern found in Didymus’s In Demosthenem commenta than the pattern of the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary—only that the thematic nature of the former strikes one as roughly analogous to Philo’s project. To take a representative example of the exegetical pattern from Didymus’s In Demosthenem commenta: in cols. 8–9, a reasonably well-preserved portion of the treatise, Didymus cites and sequentially expounds select pericopae from [Ps.]-Demosthenes, 4 Philip. 34, 35, 37, 38, 44, and 70. The selectivity and speed of Didymus’s commentary distinguishes it from Philo’s pattern of Pentateuchal interpretation in the Allegorical Commentary.  Runia, “Structure,” 228.  Runia, “Structure,” 245.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

233

Furthermore, one does well to consider what Runia calls “Philo’s ‘strongly associative mind,’” which concatenates various scriptural passages without always fully expounding the rationale for their connection. I do not mean to undermine Runia’s principle of the “finality” of the Philonic text,¹⁴ which helpfully guards against overly speculative theories about the relationship of various concatenated lemmata. However, some of Philo’s associations remain (perhaps by compositional necessity, perhaps by aesthetic choice) implicit and hence require further explication. Thus, while each Philonic chapter usually possesses a thematic unity, his interpretation of secondary lemmata often introduce what might be called digressions of a second order—not digressions which distract or which result from the inelegant concatenation of questions and answers, of which Nikiprowetzky accused Philo’s treatises at the macrostructural level, but excursuses which result naturally from Philo’s development of secondary exegetical discussions. These interpretations often possess a “relative independence” from the primary topic at least at the literary, if not at the tradition-historical level.¹⁵ To illustrate the digressive character of Philonic interpretations of secondary lemmata, I return to Philo’s excursus on Num 6:2–12 in Deus 87–90. Philo’s allegory on Numbers follows close upon his exposition of the primary lemma in this chapter: “Noah found grace before the Lord God” (Gen 6:8). In Deus 86, Philo cites the primary lemma and focuses in on Noah’s act of finding (εὗρε). He adds that discerning grammarians and philosophical lexicographers (οἱ ζητητικοί) differentiate between two kinds of finding: that which is in essence “re-finding” (ἀνεύρεσις) of what once was lost, and that which is in fact true “finding” (εὗρεσις) of something never possessed. The rest of the chapter is comprised of Philo’s illustration of these two processes in the life of the athlete of virtue. Deus 87–90 illustrates ἀνεύρεσις, or refinding, with reference to Num 6:2–12. Deus 91–103 follows with an explication of εὗρεσις, or finding proper. In addition to being longer, Philo’s explication of finding proper is more exegetically complex and contains secondary excursuses on Gen 27:20 (Deus 92), Deut 6:10–11 (Deus 94–95), and Deut 1:43–45 (Deus 99–100). Although it is never explicitly stated, it seems that the grace Noah finds is truly a novel thing, and hence finding rather than re-finding. This renders his discussion of εὗρεσις far more pertinent to the primary lemma. Noah has found favor in the second, proper sense of the word, or so the sequence and detail of the two subsections of the chapter seems to hint.

 Runia, “Structure,” 237.  Ibid., 231.

234

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

Of course, in distinguishing between ἀνεύρεσις and εὗρεσις, Philo is imitating a philosophical commentary commonplace, found also in the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary. ¹⁶ However, within the scope of the chapter, Philo need not have extensively interpreted a secondary lemma to define the kind of finding Moses is not (explicitly) talking about in Gen 6:8. Deus 87–90 is thus, in the final assessment, not merely exegetical amplification but also exegetical digression. (The same, of course, would also be the case if Philo thinks Noah’s finding amounts to ἀνεύρεσις rather than εὗρεσις; one of the two accounts is gratuitous.) A further digressive aspect in Deus 87–90 arises from the complexity of the allegory itself. Philo begins Deus 87 by drawing the reader’s attention away from the primary polarity of ἀνεύρεσις and εὗρεσις toward a completely different exegetical binary: the distinction between a vow (εὐχή) and a great vow (εὐχὴ μεγάλη). That binary itself is derived inductively from Num 6:2b, ὃς ἐὰν μεγάλως εὔξηται εὔχην. Philo’s amplification thus leaves the theme of rediscovery and plunges the reader into a detailed exegesis of a secondary lemma, whose relation to the primary theme of ἀνεύρεσις remains far from apparent until the end of the amplification (Deus 90).

5.2.3 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of Philo On the one hand, Paul’s exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7–18 seems clearly more germane to the primary discourse of his letter than Philo’s excursus on ἀνεύρεσις. Nonetheless, in terms of exegetical aesthetics, Philo’s amplification of the finding/refinding dichotomy with an interpretation of Num 6:2–12 mirrors Paul’s exegetical amplification of his apostolic apology (2 Cor 2:14–3:6) in several key respects. As mentioned in chapter three, the two exegeses share several formal features, such as the sequential pattern of exegesis, lack of a formal citation of the secondary/amplificatory lemma (cf. Heb 3; Acts 2), and the similar length of both lemmata and their interpretations. Both exegeses, moreover, are also woven into their surrounding contexts using similar techniques. Deus 87–90 and 2 Cor 3:7–18 each evince explicit rhetorical connections with the preceding discussions. In Deus 87, Philo notes that the interpretation of the secondary lemma will serve as a παράδειγμα to illustrate ἀνεύρεσις. In the case of 2 Cor 3:7–18, the formal connection between exegesis and apology is not signaled until 2 Cor 3:12, where Paul’s rhetorical formula

 See Anon. Theaet. Comm. 56.11–31 and the discussion of this section in chapter three.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

235

(“therefore having this kind of hope”) echoes similar assurance formulations in 2 Cor 3:4 and 2 Cor 4:1, indicating that his exegesis will play an exemplaric role within the apology. Philo’s transition to the exegesis of Num 6:2–12 is more clearly marked than Paul’s transition to his exegesis of Exod 34:29–35, which comes retrospectively; but the paradigmatic use of exegesis is formally signaled by both authors. Likewise, both Deus 87–90 and 2 Cor 3:7–18 possess implicit thematic connections with their literary frames, despite also introducing substantive new themes. Philo connects his interpretation of Numbers to the main discourse (see Deus 86) by repeating the themes of casting away (ἀποβαλεῖν: Deus 89, 90) and finding (εὑρίσκειν: Deus 90) in the allegory. The compound forms ἀναλαμβάνει and ἀναμιμνῄσκεται (Deus 90) likewise echo the theme of ἀνεύρεσις (Deus 86, 87). Philo’s allegory also introduces several new themes, including the difference between a vow and a great vow (Deus 87), the recognition of God as the original cause of all good (Ibid.), hair as a sign of youthful virtue (Deus 88), and the falling away from virtue as a kind of “death” (Deus 89). 2 Cor 3:7–18 likewise contains lexical and thematic connections with the preceding frame, particularly 2 Cor 3:1–6, but not excluding 2 Cor 2:14–17. Most strikingly, the comparison of two kinds of ministry, which provides an interpretive polarity in Paul’s exegesis, lexically echoes the earlier descriptions of the two ministries given in 2 Cor 3:1–6. So, the (a′) ministry (b′) of death, (c′) written in letters (d′) on stones in 2 Cor 3:7 echoes the (a) ministry (2 Cor 3:3, 6), death (2 Cor 3:6), letters (γραφ-: 2 Cor 3:2, 3, 6bis), and stone (2 Cor 3:3) in the preceding pericope. Despite these lexical similarities, the two ministries compared in 2 Cor 3:1–6 and in 2 Cor 3:7–18, as Windisch and others have noted, are not identical. Rather, Paul incorporates new themes through his exegesis as well. First, while in 2 Cor 3:1–6 Paul speaks from the vantage point of his contemporary situation in Corinth, comparing his own ministry with that of his rivals, in 2 Cor 3:7–18 he turns to the nature of two different ministries, comparing the messianic ministry of the renewed covenant with the Mosaic ministry of the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). As letters in ink give way to letters carved in stone, Paul’s thought digresses from a historical comparison of rival ministries to a typological synkrisis of two covenants. Paul’s exegetical amplification in 2 Cor 3:7–18 also introduces the new themes of Moses’ glory and Moses’ veil, drawn sequentially from his biblical lemma, just as Philo drew key images, terms, and phrases sequentially from Num 6:2–12. These similarities between Paul and Philo at both the form-critical and redactional levels provide additional evidence that Paul’s exegesis of Exod 34:29–35 has its roots in the Jewish commentary tradition. Like Philo’s interpre-

236

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

tation of Num 6:2–12 in Deus 87–90, Paul’s interpretation of Exod 34:29–35 serves as an exegetical amplification which deepens the conceptual complexity of Paul’s preceding argument. While this digressive character in Philo’s exegetical excursus supplies an analogue to the digressive aesthetic of 2 Cor 3:7–18, the generic difference between the two works clearly distinguishes both the authorial intention and audience expectations for each passage. First, Deus 87–90 explicitly amplifies the interpretation of a primary lemma (Deus 86), whereas 2 Cor 3:7– 18 amplifies an apologetic passage of a Greco-Roman letter (2 Cor 2:14–3:6). Second, while Philo’s digression on ἀνεύρεσις serves as a segue into a more important digression on εὗρεσις, Paul’s excursus on Moses serves as his central secondary-level exegesis in this section. Third, 2 Cor 4:1–6—the pericope immediately following the exegesis in which Paul incorporates his commentary into the apologetic frame of the letter—finds no clear parallel in Deus 91–103. In fact, no further mention of this exegesis of Numbers 6 is made in the chapter. Rather than supplying Philo with new theological vocabulary for the ongoing discussion of the primary lemma, much of the theological content from Numbers is dropped from his discourse as suddenly as it was introduced. To find a closer analogue for Paul’s rhetorical use of formal exegesis in 2 Cor 3:7–18, one must turn to parallels outside the scholastic commentary.

5.2.4 Exegetical Amplification in the Epistle to the Hebrews One finds a similar, though not an identical, use of exegetical amplification in Heb 3:7–4:11. The anonymous homilist’s exegesis of LXX Ps 94:7–11—nestled within the frame of the larger homily as a matryoshka doll, and “relatively independent” from it in the same sense as Philo’s allegory on Num 6:2–12—shows a relation of partial continuity with the main argument in Hebrews that closely resembles the function of Deus 87–90 within the broader scope of Deus 86–103. Heb 3:7–4:11 represents an exegetical amplification of Heb 3:1–6, the opening of the second major movement of the homily.¹⁷ In Heb 3:1–6, the homilist sets out a rhetorical synkrisis between the foundational figures of the old and new covenants, Moses and Jesus. A key theme in that synkrisis is the faithfulness of each toward God in their appointed ministries (Heb 3:2: πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτόν). The faithfulness of both figures is exegetically rooted in Num 12:7, which is alluded to sans formula in Heb 3:5 (Μωϋσῆς μὲν πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ). These themes of faithfulness and its implicit opposite, unfaithful-

 Attridge, Hebrews, 114.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

237

ness, remain central threads running through the subsequent paraenetic passage (Heb 3:7–4:11).¹⁸ The little Psalmic homily, however, also digresses from the themes of the previous section. While Heb 3:1–6 thus “lay[s] the foundation for the following expositional and hortatory pericope (3:7–4:11) … the initial contrast quickly fades into the background while the importance of fidelity is stressed as the way to attain the goal of divine ‘rest’.”¹⁹ Thus, in his exegetical digression on LXX Ps 94:7–11, the homilist introduces several new themes derived from the biblical text, most importantly the themes of the eschatological “day” and “rest.” He likewise shifts his attention from the faithfulness of both Moses and Christ to the unfaithfulness of the wilderness generation, who stand in a kind of typological relation to the homilist’s congregation. The meditation on Jesus’ unique identity is the major theological focus of the first section (Heb 1:1–2:18), accomplished through synkrisis with the role of the angels. That synkrisis, as Attridge notes, is complemented in Heb 3:1–6 with a second synkrisis between Jesus and Moses.²⁰ In shifting attention away from Jesus (and Moses), and onto their followers in Heb 3:7–4:13, the homilist clearly digresses from the central theological figure of his discourse. The main theological thread is “resumed” in Heb 4:14, returning to the theme of Jesus’ role as high priest (Heb 3:1), which disappeared during the paraenetic section.²¹ Of course, Moses and Christ are not entirely absent from Heb 3:7–4:11. Their characterizations, however, vary markedly from their characterizations in Heb 3:1–6—another sign of the digressive character of this subsection. In particular, in Heb 3:1–6, Moses’ ministry is not explicitly denigrated or deemed unsuccessful.²² Jesus’ ministry is “thought worthy of a greater glory” only insofar as he possesses an ontologically greater house. In Heb 3:16, by contrast, all those who leave Egypt διὰ Μωϋσέως are clearly criticized, being identified with those who

 Heb 3:12: ἀπιστία; Heb 3:19: ἀπιστία; Heb 4:2: πίστει; Heb 4:3 πιστεύσαντες; *Heb 4:6, 11: ἀπιστία (046).  Attridge, Hebrews, 104.  Attridge, Hebrews, 114.  I do not mean unduly to privilege the Christological portions of Hebrews, as a group, over the paraenetic ones. As Attridge notes in his commentary (Hebrews, 14–15), Hebrews consists of an “alternation between exposition and exhortation” in which there exists a “functional relationship between dogmatic, expository sections and paraenetic passages.” Insofar as distinctly dogmatic sections, which bear relation to each other, can be distinguished, it seems within reason also to speak of digressions.  One notes a rough analogy with 2 Cor 3:7–11.

238

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

“provoked” God.²³ The sins of the people reflect poorly on the ministry of their leader. Heb 4:8 pushes this synkrisis forward to the next generation of Israelite leaders, emphasizing not merely that Moses could not bridle the stubborn hearts of the wilderness generation, but that the Septuagintal Ἰησοῦς did not bring the Israelites into the land. When that land is associated with the Sabbath rest in the same verse, it appears that Moses and Joshua are accused not only of failing as political leaders of a holy colonial expedition, but likewise of failing to help the Israelites comply with one of the flagship stipulations of the Sinai covenant. There is no hint of such a negative valuation of Moses’ ministry in Heb 3:1–6. This inconcinnity thus further underlines the digressive character of the amplification in Heb 3:7–4:11.

5.2.5 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of Hebrews The rhetorical sandwiching of Heb 3:7–4:11 within the larger homiletic unit of Heb 3:1–4:13 parallels the similar phenomenon in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6 and thus offers a more useful analogue than Deus 86–103. Two initial points of difference, however, between these texts need to be initially highlighted as well. First, unlike 2 Cor 3:7–18, Heb 3:7–4:11 includes a full citation of its underlying pericope (LXX Ps 94:7–11). Second, Hebrews interprets a non-pentateuchal text. In these two important respects, Deus 87–90 and 2 Cor 3:7–18 stand in closer proximity. Unlike Deus 87–90, however, Heb 3:7–4:11 does not complement the exposition of a primary lemma, but amplifies a homiletic synkrisis (Heb 3:1–6). This more closely mirrors Paul’s amplification of his apostolic apology (2 Cor 2:14– 3:6) in 2 Cor 3:7–18, which involves a comparison of two kinds of apostolic authority. This is not to say that the arguments of Heb 3:1–6 and 2 Cor 3:1–6 have no basis in scripture. As mentioned above, Heb 3:1–6 offers an interpretation of Num 12:7, just as 2 Cor 3:1–6 echoes and interprets both Jer 31[38]:31, 33 and Ezek 11:19; 36:26. In this sense, both Heb 3:7–4:11 and 2 Cor 3:7–18 are rightly considered secondary-level expositions within their own contexts. Given their nonscholastic settings, however, both interpretations no longer follow an actual primary lemma, but a scripturally-based thematic discourse. Thus, while the internal form of 2 Cor 3:7–18 agrees more closely with a pattern known from Philo

 One notes a rough analogy with 2 Cor 3:12–15. The distinction from Paul’s Exodus exegesis lies in the fact that Heb 3:1–6 and Heb 3:7–4:11 do not comment on a single biblical pericope. Formally speaking, Heb 3:1–6 finds a closer analogue in 2 Cor 3:1–6, as I will demonstrate in the subsequent section.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

239

(Deus 87–90, etc.), its literary framing more nearly aligns with the homiletic/epistolary form of Heb 3:1–4:13. Hebrews also illuminates a further feature of Paul’s epistolary framing of 2 Cor 3:7–18: the coda of 2 Cor 4:1–6. As mentioned above, 2 Cor 4:1–6 draws on elements of Paul’s commentary (2 Cor 3:7–18) and applies them to his apology. Thus, in his Corinthian context, Paul can now speak of the “veiling” (2 Cor 4:3bis) of his gospel, the “image” (2 Cor 4:4) of God, minds and hearts as the real locus of veiling/darkening (2 Cor 4:4, 6), and the “glory” (2 Cor 4:4, 6) and “face” (2 Cor 4:6) of Christ. These new themes are interwoven with themes taken from the opening frame as well (2 Cor 2:14 –3:6), such as “self-recommendation” (2 Cor 3:1, 4:2) and the soteriological category of “the perishing” (τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις: 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3). We find a partial parallel to Paul’s epistolary coda (2 Cor 4:1–6) in Heb 4:11– 13. However, while Heb 4:11 recapitulates a few major themes from the homily, these are not integrated with themes from the opening frame.²⁴ Heb 4:12–13, for its part, is a relatively independent and “elaborate bit of festive prose.”²⁵ It is only when the Christological discourse resumes in Heb 4:14–16 that the themes of Jesus’ high priesthood and Christian parrhēsia from the opening synkrisis (ἀρχιερέα: Heb 3:1, 4:14, 15; παρρησία: Heb 3:6, 4:16) and the notion of “trial” from the Psalms homily (πειρασμοῦ: Heb 3:8, πεπειρασμένον: Heb 4:15) are woven together to create the amplified portrait of Christ, the wilderness-tested high priest. While Heb 4:14–16 thus does not integrate the themes of the preceding two sections as elaborately as 2 Cor 4:1–6, it nonetheless performs some of the same rhetorical and constructive theological tasks.

5.2.6 Exegetical Amplification in the Damascus Document The Damascus Document, an Essene treatise comprised inter alia of a communal foundation narrative, halakhot, and paraenesis, provides yet another generic context in which secondary-level exegesis occurs.²⁶ The section that I will exam-

 Unless, of course, one reads ἀπιστίας with 046 rather than ἀπειθείας with the majority of MSS.  Attridge, Hebrews, 133.  The difficulty of adequately describing the genre of D is evinced by the scholarly preference to refer to it simply as a “document.” Despite having some formal continuity with covenants known from ANE literature and the Hebrew Bible, it is usually admitted that D is a composite text, comprised of several genres, including halakhic lists, admonitory prose, and sectarian nar-

240

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

ine here, CD-A 4.12–5.19 (“The Three Nets of Belial”), is one of the best-known passages of scriptural interpretation at Qumran (See chapter four for an analysis). As the only explicit pesher present in D, it provides a unique bridge between formal Essene commentary practice and communal narrative. Like Heb 3:7–4:11, CD-A 4.12b – 19 has formal differences from 2 Cor 3:7–18 that are important to keep in mind. For instance, the use of a citation formula (‫ )כאשר דבר אל ביד ישעיה הנביא בן אמוץ לאמר‬and an explicit exegetical formula (‫ )פשרו‬in CD-A 4.13b – 14 do not suggest this passage as the best parallel for 2 Cor 3:7–18, given the implicit nature of Paul’s lemmatic exegesis. On the other hand, both of these features, especially the occurrence of ‫פשרו‬, have the advantage of explicitly tying the ensuing exegesis to the commentary tradition. This makes CD-A 4.12b – 5.15a a clear instance of the use of a commentary tradition in a non-commentary text.

5.2.6.1 The Rhetorical Use of the Three Nets Pesher in the Damascus Document As a brief reminder, CD-A 4.12–5.19 first offers a prophetic exegesis of Isa 24:17, interpreting Isaiah’s alliterative “panic, pit, and net” (‫ )פחד ופחת ופח‬as Belial’s three nets (‫)מצודות‬, which are identified as (1) fornication (‫( ;)זנות‬2) wealth (‫;)הון‬ and (3) defilement of the temple (‫)טמא המקדש‬. The rest of the section then constitutes an uneven explanation of these three nets in light of various halakhic stipulations. The pesher on the Three Nets of Belial (CD-A 4.12b – 5.15a or 4.12b – 5.19) comprises a unique and relatively self-contained movement within the Admonition of D.²⁷ Charlotte Hempel titles it “Israel under the Dominion of Belial,” situating it structurally between the third and fourth narrations of “the Origins of a Move-

ratives. Campbell, Use of Scripture, 46, notes these difficulties and suggests that D is better considered a “text for which no overall generic classification can be posited.”  Hempel, Damascus Texts, 30, suggests a slightly longer pericope, CD-A 4.12b – 5.19. Campbell, Use of Scripture, 116, suggests a shorter passage, CD-A 4:12b – 5:15a, following Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ‘Damascus Document’ (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 108, “(IV,12b–V,16),” who sees a source division at this point in the text. Whether CDA 5.15b – 19 is “retrospective” as Hempel claims or the beginning of the next section (CD-A 5.20– 6:11a) is difficult to determine. The reference to Belial in CD-A 5.18 might suggest the retrospective verdict, given that the name occurs only twice in the Admonition (CD-A 4.13, 5.18); the mention of Jannes, on this view, reflects the deceptions of Belial. Alternatively, one can detect in syntax of CD-A 5.15b certain transitional features and the reference to Moses and Aaron may point forward to the men of knowledge from Aaron in CD-A 6:2. Determining the precise end of the pericope is not crucial to the current discussion.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

241

ment.”²⁸ As such, on Hempel’s analysis, it already possesses a kind of digressive character. Clearly, however, leveling accusations and spelling out halakhic prohibitions play a central role in the sectarian-foundation narratives of D.²⁹ Some scholars thus see this pericope related to material quite so near at hand. Both Hempel and Jonathan Campbell, for example, suggest that CD-A 4.12b – 5.15a (19) continues the narrative of salvation history from the immediately previous section, turning, however, from “Israel’s past shortcomings” to “contemporary society.”³⁰ Philip Davies, in a slightly different vein, sees this pericope as an amplification of the negative side of the Essene determinism prevalent throughout the Admonition, particularly at its beginning. So, writes Davies, “the activity of Belial throughout this time is to be understood by the reader as an amplification of the predestinarian account in II,2–13.”³¹ Davies may have in mind here the final phrase of the introductory section, ‫“( ואת אשר שנא התעה‬but those whom [God] hates, he causes to stray”, CD-A 2.13). CD-A 4.12b – 5.19, on this reading, amplifies and mollifies the deterministic vision set forth in CD-A 2.2–13 by introducing a cosmic dualism, in which it is Belial and his human agents (Jannes, his brother, the “movers of the boundary,” etc.), rather than the electing God, who most directly cause those outside the remnant to “stray” (‫ויתעו את ישראל‬, CD-A 5.20). Whether one follows Hempel and Campbell or Davies, the introduction of Belial in this section is clearly meant to amplify the narrative of Israel’s decline and fall. Even if Davies’ argument proves convincing, the lexical connection that I have drawn between the CD-A 2:13 and CD-A 5:20 (”‫ )תע‬occurs outside the Three Nets pesher and its subsequent explication (CD-A 4.12b – 5.15a). To try and establish a clear redactional link between the two passages, one might plausibly detect in the blood of Uriah (CD-A 5.5) and the defiling menstrual blood (CD-A 5.7) echoes of the blood which incites divine abhorrence in CD-A 2.8. But even these echoes only connect the opening of the Admonition with the halakhic exposition of the pesher (CD-A 4.19b – 5.15a), not the pesher itself (CD-A

 Hempel, Damascus Texts, 28–30.  Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 17: “Some of these rulings may have originated before any separatist movement came into being, but they are now part of the understanding of the Torah that gives this group its raison d’être.”  Hempel, Damascus Texts, 30; Campbell, Use of Scripture, 116.  Davies, Damascus Covenant, 109, emphasis added. The observation holds valid even if one does not accept Davies’ position that CD-A 4.12b–15a refers to Belial’s deception of Israel since the exile and not merely since the founding of the community (see Davies, Damascus Covenant, 108).

242

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

4.12b – 19a). In the pesher, one finds not the language of straying (“‫ )תע‬but the language of ensnarement (‫)תפש‬, a root which occurs nowhere else in D.³² Indeed, determining the relationship between the pesher on Isa 24:17 (CD-A 4.12b – 19a) and the subsequent halakhic accusations (CD-A 4.19b – 5.15a) remains one of the “main problems” facing the interpreter of this passage.³³ With Davies and others, I think it possible in this particular case that the Three Nets pesher may stem from an independent commentary, one which was originally disconnected from the subsequent accusations and stemming, at least in part, from an apocalyptic Levi tradition.³⁴ However, the cumulative evidence of this study as a whole also suggests that technical exegeses might have been composed in situ, as it were, by the authors of non-commentary texts trained in Jewish or Platonic commentary traditions. While the precise tradition history of the Three Nets pesher thus remains an open question, its primary importance for this study lies at the final stage of its redaction. An exegetical tradition on Isa 24:17 using the technical term pesher is here redeployed by the redactor of D. Although the names of the three nets are based on the content of Isa 24:17, the redactor must then go to great lengths to explicate how the pesher might halakhically frame the subsequent accusations.³⁵ The pesher on Isa 24:17, in opening an amplificatory section of D, thus digresses from the immediate topic of sectarian history to give a window into the broader spiritual forces working against the community. The reception of the pesher in CD-A 4.19b – 5.15a likewise redefines the language of the exegetical tradition in terms of its particular halakhic concerns, expanding its original meaning to fit the demands of its discourse. Although the terms from the pesher are not picked up sequentially or comprehensively, they nonetheless make a significant contribution to the primary discourse of the treatise once it resumes. The net of wealth, in particular, which could not be applied in the prohibitions, returns in CD-A 6.15, in combination with the theme of defilement, in the command to “keep away from the wicked wealth which defiles”  See James Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Graphic Concordance (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991).  Campbell, Use of Scripture, 117.  Davies, Damascus Covenant, 110: “the two components [the pesher on Isaiah and the list of accusations] are most readily understood as independent sources because they do not correspond exactly with each other.” For the connection of this saying with the Testament of Levi tradition (which is also attested in the Qumran documents) see J. C. Greenfield, “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, 15–19,” RQ 13 (1988): 319–22.  For an intriguing analysis of the triadic structure of the Sermon on the Mount in light of the Three Nets pesher, see Walter T. Wilson, “A Third Form of Righteousness: The Theme and Contribution of Matthew 6.19–7.12 in the Sermon on the Mount,” NTS 53 (2007): 303–24, esp. 321–322.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

243

(‫)להנזר מהון הרשעה הטמא‬. As such, the redactor of D continues to draw on the Three Nets pesher as a kind of theological arsenal in a variety of subsequent passages—reusing the commentary tradition in an even more sustained way than Heb 4:11–16.

5.2.7 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Damascus Document Salient differences notwithstanding, the use of the pesher on Isa 24:17 in CD-A 4.12b – 4.19a and the incorporation of its language in CD-A 4:19b – 5.15a (and beyond) shed important light on Paul’s rhetorical technique in 2 Corinthians, particularly on 2 Cor 4:1–6. The first two points to be emphasized here are structural. First, both Paul’s exegesis of Exod 34:29–35 and the pesher on Isa 24:17 are introduced without significant formal or thematic preparation for the reader. While 2 Cor 2:14–3:6 supplies verbal fore-echoes of Paul’s exegetical themes, the sudden occurrence of a highly developed discourse on Moses in 2 Cor 3:7 strikes the reader as surprising in the context of a non-commentary text. The same can be said for the rather abrupt transition into the Isaiah 24 pesher. The appearance of Belial in CD-A 4.13 represents the sudden introduction of a new figure on the stage of salvation history. Second, both Paul and the redactor of D incorporate the particulars of their respective exegeses into the context of either letter or treatise primarily through the subsequent rather than the foregoing sections. In both 2 Cor 4:1–6 and CD-A 4.19b – 5.15a, moreover, the subsequent incorporation of language is (a) selective, (b) loosely-sequential, and (c) involves a creative theological re-reading or interpretation of that language. So, in CD-A 4.19b – 5.15a, (a) while not all elements were commented upon, (b) the basic sequence of nets one and three, fornication preceding defilement of the temple, is loosely if imperfectly followed. In 2 Cor 4:3–6, likewise, one finds phrases from Paul’s exegesis loosely in the sequence in which they appear in 2 Cor 3:13–18. (1) the veiling of Paul’s gospel in 2 Cor 4:3a (κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν; see also 2 Cor 4:3b) mirrors the veiling of Moses’ face in 2 Cor 3:13a; (2) the blinding of the minds of unbelievers in 2 Cor 4:4a (ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα) and (3) the inability to see the gospel in 2 Cor 4:4b (εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι) correspond with the hardening of minds (ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα, 2 Cor 3:14a) and inability to see (πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι, 2 Cor 3:13b) which afflict the sons of Israel. Finally, (4) the image and glory of God in 2 Cor 4:4b accompanied by the face of Jesus Christ in 2 Cor 4:6 reflect the occurrence of those terms in 2 Cor 3:18. A more complete set of these similarities can be illustrated in the following table (Table 5.1):

244

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

Table 5.1: Integration of 2 Cor 3:7–18 in 2 Cor 4:1–6 Lexical Theme

Exegesis

Theological Coda

Veiling Blinding/Hardening of Minds Inability to See Heart/Hearts Image, Glory, Christ

    

    

Cor Cor Cor Cor Cor

:a :a :b : :

Cor Cor Cor Cor Cor

:a :a :b :b :d, c

As Paul thus weaves the language of his exegesis into the apostolic apology, he likewise (c) transforms and clarifies its meaning to fit his Corinthian context and kerygma. So, “the minds of the sons of Israel” (τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν, 2 Cor 3:14) become “the minds of the unbelievers” (τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων, 2 Cor 4:4a); “the glory of the Lord” (τὴν δόξαν κυρίου, 2 Cor 3:18) becomes explicitly “the glory of Christ” (τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor 4:4b); “the same image” (τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα, 2 Cor 3:18) is revealed to be “the image of God,” who is “Christ” (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor 4:4bc); the Lord’s equation with the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17) is complemented by the Lord’s equation with Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:5; cf. 2 Cor 3:14);³⁶ and the unveiled face of all believers (ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ, 2 Cor 3:18) is brought into direct contact with the face of Christ (ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor 4:6). One final point of comparison between 2 Cor 3:7–4:6 and CD-A 4.12b – 5.19 pertains to their similar solutions to the theodical problem of human disobedience in the context of a deterministic worldview. This admittedly steps outside the primary aim of this chapter to illuminate the rhetorical function of Paul’s epistolary exegesis. However, form and substance in biblical commentary are never completely separate and in this case, the overlap will prove relevant as

 While Christ and the Spirit remain conceptually differentiated in Paul’s thought, there is good reason to believe that Paul has not entirely distinguished them as separate eschatological powers or persons of God as later Trinitarian thought would do. See, e.g., 1 Cor 15:45, where the “last Adam” is not identified as Christ (cf. Rom 5:14) or a “lifegiving body” but as the “lifegiving s/Spirit.” Thus, in speaking of God’s “third aspect,” Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 262, 407, 414, can pinpoint in Paul’s thought an “overlap between Christ and the Spirit,” in which “Paul intended to represent the risen Christ as in some sense taking over the role of or even somehow becoming identified with the life-giving Spirit of God.” Dunn is perceptive, however, in emphasizing not that Paul focuses on the ontological identity of the Son and the Spirit, but rather, that in the subjective experience of the early church, the work of Christ and the Spirit was often perceived coextensively as “two sides of the same coin” (Ibid. 414). This differentiated identity between Christ and the Spirit is partially analogous to what one might also call the differentiated identity of God and Christ in 1 Cor 8:6.

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

245

a kind of prolegomenon to the discussion of Paul’s Mosaic thought-world in chapter six. With regard to the content of these two secondary-level exegeses, it is worthy of note that both Paul (in 2 Corinthians) and the redactor of D address similar questions of theodicy in their exegeses, referring the ultimate source of human deception and the “inability” to see God to the deceptive work of angelic forces, particularly Belial. Moses, in both texts, is ultimately absolved of guilt and placed clearly on the side of God. As I argued above, the two references to Belial in CD-A 4.13 and 5.18 are intended to situate Essene double predestination within the context of a cosmic dualism. Moses and Aaron stand clearly on the side of God, as opposed to their unholy counterparts, Jannes and his brother (CD-A 5.18–19). The pesher, however, as an independent interpretation of Isa 24:17, is already an apologetic piece, attempting to identify the agent behind the “terror, pit, and snare” of Isaiah’s little apocalypse. The text of Isaiah itself suggests no angelic interference. Rather, the one employing the “terror, pit, and snare” upon “the inhabitant of the earth” is most plausibly YHWH himself. Explicitly connecting these three instruments of deception with Belial thus distances the sovereign God from the works of moral deception. The redactor of D redoubles this move by putting the pesher to theodical use within the sectarian narrative of national apostasy. In 2 Cor 3:12–4:6, one sees a similar apologetic attempt to distance God and his minister (Moses) from any direct guilt in inhibiting the sons of Israel from seeing God’s glory. Paul (and perhaps the final redactor of 2 Corinthians as well), like the redactor of D, prefers to attribute this hardening and blinding activity to God’s cosmic enemy, “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4). Moses is absolved of any guilt for Israel’s lack of comprehension in 2 Cor 3:14. While the act of Moses’ veiling his face in 2 Cor 3:13 might initially have been taken to signify his culpability, Paul is quick to add in 2 Cor 3:14: ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν. The inability of the sons of Israel to see Moses’ face, according to Paul, results from the hardened minds of the Israelites themselves. The passive, ἐπωρώθη, however, might simultaneously be taken to shift the blame onto God, as a divine passive. Keen to dispel this reading as well, lest he jump out of the frying pan of accusing Moses and into the fire of accusing God, Paul clarifies in 2 Cor 4:4 that it is “the ‘god’ of this age who [actively] blinded the minds of those who do not believe.” As the redactor of D, so also Paul here absolves God and Moses of guilt by shifting blame ultimately onto God’s cosmic opponent. Indeed, the connection between Paul’s “‘god’ of this age” (2 Cor 4:4) and D’s Belial becomes even more apparent if one draws into the discussion the famous bicolon from 2 Cor 6:15: τίς δὲ συμφώνησις Χριστοῦ πρὸς Βελιάρ, ἢ τίς μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου. Despite the disputed authenticity of this passage, it is

246

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

clear that Paul or the redactor of 2 Corinthians could easily have identified “the ‘god’ of this age/world” with God’s angelic opponent Belial. Thus, important theological affinities accompany the exegetical and redactional similarities of these two secondary-level exegeses. Paul, it seems, was deeply influenced not merely by the commentary forms, but also by the thought of Palestinian Judaism. As I will argue in chapter six, Paul may equally engage the thought of Hellenophone Judaism from the Diaspora in 2 Cor 3:7–4:6. This substantive parallel with an Essene treatise noted here serves as a reminder of one of the unique aspects of Paul’s thought, namely, his uncanny ability to draw together the apocalyptic and philosophical traditions of Hellenistic Judaism into a new religious synthesis.

5.2.8 Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium One final example of digressive poetics occurs in Seneca’s incorporation of a middle-Platonic commentary tradition on the Timaeus into Epistula 58 of his Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. In chapter four, I offered an analysis of the first two sections (Ep. 58.1–7, 58.8–24) of this letter. A closer look at the third section of Seneca’s playful, erudite, and sometimes ironic letter will provide a further example of the way the redeployment of commentary traditions, while certainly digressive, might be put to the service of the author’s philosophical ends, in this case, Seneca’s more general aim of Stoic ethical psychagogy. To briefly recapitulate the contents of the letter, Ep. 58.1–7 offers a general introduction to the philosophical deficiency of the Latin language for discussing Platonic metaphysics. Ep. 58.8–24, the philosophical core of the letter, presents a detailed discussion of Plato’s categories of being, beginning with Tim. 27d6, but quickly transcending textual concerns and passing into a rehearsal of MiddlePlatonic developments. The interest of this letter for the present investigation returns when Seneca does also, in the third section of his letter (Ep. 58.25–37), from the heights of technical Platonic metaphysics to the task of moral psychagogy. Seneca, after all, has included this technical exposition of Plato’s ontology not in a Platonic treatise on metaphysics but in a Stoic letter on ethics. If Lucilius has forgotten this during the rather long discussion of Ep. 58.8–24, Seneca’s transition into the final section of the letter jars him into attention: ‘Quid ista’ inquis ‘mihi subtilitas proderit?’ Si me interrogas, nihil; sed quemadmodum ille caelator oculos diu intentos ac fatigatos remittit atque avocat et, ut dici solet, pascit, sic nos animum aliquando debemus relaxare et quibusdam oblectamentis reficere. Sed ipsa oblec-

5.2 Paul’s Exegesis of Exodus in its Epistolary Frame

247

tamenta opera sint; ex his quoque, si observaveris, sumes quod possit fieri salutare. Hoc ego, Lucili, facere soleo: ex omni notione, etiam si a philosophia longissime aversa est, eruere aliquid conor et utile efficere. You will [no doubt] say, “What will this [philosophical] subtlety profit me?” And if you ask me that, [I will reply,] “nothing.” But just as the engraver, when his eyes have been too long fixed on his subject and are grown weary, rests them and diverts them and, as one is accustomed to say, feeds them [on other sights], so also we ought sometimes to relax our minds and loosen them with enjoyable diversions. But let these diversions themselves become works of attention! For from these also, if you will observe carefully, you will glean that which is able to bring you health. This, at least, Lucilius, is what I always try to do: to draw something from every notion, even if it is quite a long way removed from philosophy, and to make it useful. (Ep. 58.25–26)

In nothing less than a stunning act of wit and self-abasement, Seneca admits to Lucilius that his entire discussion of Plato’s metaphysics has been, in a certain sense, beside the point. His use of a commentary tradition, while certainly pursued in technical earnest, turns out, within the psychagogic scope of his letter, to be in truth, a virtual nihil if taken by itself.³⁷ One even hears—in Seneca’s quip about the usefulness of all experiences, however far-removed from philosophy they be (etiam si a philosophia longissime aversa est)—a not-so-subtle jab at the Platonists, caught up as they are in metaphysical speculation, which in the final assessment may be nothing more than an oblectamentum. Of course, Seneca’s ridicule of Platonist speculation cannot be taken as a disparagement of Plato. As Gretchen Reydams-Schils and others have argued, many Stoics were quite avid, if selective, readers of Plato’s Timaeus.³⁸ Within the context of their physical monism, getting essence right has everything to do with ethics. It is precisely in this context that Seneca is able to draw from Plato’s physics a Stoic admonition to recognize the transience of the perceptible world and to curb the pleasures which stem from it (si voluptates, quibus pars maior perit, poterimus regere et coercere, Ep. 58.29). Seneca thus distills, in classic Stoic fashion, the ethical meaning of Plato’s cosmological thought.

 Inwood, Seneca, 131 notes that such a major caesura is commonplace in Seneca’s letters: “As often in the letters, Seneca self-consciously marks a major break in the themes and point of view taken. As also happens frequently, the motivation here for the ‘break’ is a concern for the practical or moral utility of the discussion.” On this view, Ep. 58.8–24 may be equally a digression and also an integral part of the first movement formed by Ep. 58.1–24 in its entirety.  See Gretchen Reydams-Schils, Demiurge and Providence: Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999); eadem, “Stoicized Readings of Plato’s Timaeus in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 7 (1995): 85–102; and Inwood, Seneca, 110.

248

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

However, it is not only Plato’s physics, but above all the example of Plato’s life, which offers the clearest window into his philosophy for Seneca. Thus, in Ep. 58.30–32, he turns from sucking the marrow out of his Platonic diversion to contemplating the narrative of Plato’s life and death, most especially, Plato’s model of diligentia (Ep. 58.30bis, 31), which led him to old age and a readiness to commit a virtuous suicide, should that have been necessary. The function of the (meta)physical discussion in Ep. 58.8–24, with the advantage of hindsight, appears then to be a digressive use of a commentary tradition. And yet, Seneca’s moral paraenesis would not have nearly the same gravitas, neither would his recourse to Platonic exemplarity for the Stoic make nearly so much sense, had Seneca not engaged Plato’s thought with such a studied playfulness.

5.2.9 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of Seneca’s Epistulae Morales If we ask what light the foregoing analysis sheds on 2 Cor 3:7–18, one might coyly reply, again, with Seneca’s nihil. It is undeniable that in comparison with Philo, Hebrews, and the Damascus Document, Epistula 58 has less to offer by way of substantive theological parallel. Paul, moreover, is nowhere near as transparent about the digressive character of his use of commentary tradition as Seneca. That said, insofar as the aim of this section has been to demonstrate the digressive poetics of exegetical amplification in a Greco-Roman letter, one could equally answer in truth: multum per omnem modum. Seneca’s appeal to Platonic exemplarity, moreover, in certain ways bears striking resemblance to the dynamics of Paul’s adaptation of Mosaic exemplarity for the Corinthian church. Seneca, we saw, downplays certain aspects of Plato’s thought, while emphasizing its ethical ramifications and the exemplaric function of Plato’s life. Paul draws on the tradition of Mosaic exemplarity with a similar ambiguity. The words chiseled in stone of the “old covenant” (parallel to Plato’s idealist metaphysics in Seneca’s case) may lead one, in Paul’s estimation, to remain blind to the main point. The point, in both Seneca and Paul, is the possibility that Plato and Moses respectively offer not only authoritative texts (if read with the correct telos in mind) but also patterns of ethical transformation. To be sure, Seneca’s and Paul’s visions remain different in the particulars. Whereas Seneca’s emphases on (a) cultivating friendship with oneself (Ep. 58.32) and (b) individual transformation ultimately lead him to find a place, perhaps latently on the model of Socrates, for virtuous suicide

5.3 Conclusion

249

(Ep. 58.34), Paul the Apostle, who asks similar questions of the benefits of tarrying in this life (Phil 1:21–26),³⁹ ultimately opts to live on in the grace of Christ for the sake of communal transformation (2 Cor 3:18; Phil 1:24) rather than preemptively to embrace the release he also desired. Death was for Paul, unlike Seneca, no καλὸς κίνδυνος⁴⁰ but Christian κέρδος.⁴¹ On the other hand, for Paul as also for Seneca (Ep. 58.34), life itself becomes a mysterious κίνδυνος, not only because life offers the danger of falling into vice (as in Seneca), but because life presents the possibility of having to suffer along with Christ and the uncertainty of never knowing what fruits one will bear for the kingdom (Phil 1:22). Despite these difference, both Paul and Seneca stand as liminal figures on the borderlands (to borrow a term from Daniel Boyarin) of movements (Mosaic Judaism, Platonism) to which they are deeply indebted but from the official organs of which they stand at varying degrees of distance. Both found creative ways, through the medium of letters, to incorporate the technical exegesis of these traditions while transforming their teachings into tools for pastoral guidance and ethical transformation.

5.3 Conclusion: Literary Unity, Paul’s Opponents, and a New Vision of Moses Having traced several examples of secondary-level exegesis in commentaries, homilies, treatises, and letters, all composed in rough contemporaneity with the Pauline epistles, I am now ready to assess the literary unity of 2 Cor 2:14– 4:6 and to pose some more substantive questions about the payoff of this analysis for 2 Corinthians. The evidence shows that commentary as a textual function was practiced in a variety of non-commentary texts. The digressive character of Paul’s exegesis of Exodus, moreover, was not out of place in his chosen genre, but conforms with conventional standards. All of the authors surveyed in this chapter also share with Paul not only a digressive compositional aesthetic, but also a desire to organically link their exegetical excursuses with the broader argument or narrative that they are constructing. Each author employs various redactional devices, which provide a key to understanding the thematic relationship between digression and frame. It is upon the integrity of these thematic

 For Paul’s meditation on life and death in Phil 1:21–26 read in light of Seneca’s Epistulae morales and Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, see Hans Dieter Betz, Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (WUNT 1.343; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).  Plato, Phaedo 114d, echoed as periculum in Seneca, Ep. 58.34.  Phil 1:21.

250

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

relationships that one’s judgment of the literary unity of any given section ultimately depends. To my mind, the foregoing evidence of the complex interlinking of themes between Paul’s epistolary frame and his exegesis offers sufficient evidence to posit the literary unity of 2 Cor 2:14–4:6. It remains to be asked what we might learn about Paul’s situation from the content of the exegesis itself.

5.3.1 Covenant Renewal One of the most salient connections between Paul’s epistolary frame (2 Cor 2:14– 3:6, 4:1–6) and his exegesis (2 Cor 3:7–18) is the echo of the Jeremianic “new covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη) from 2 Cor 3:6 in Paul’s neologism “the old covenant” (ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη) in 2 Cor 3:14. The theme of the new covenant is central both to the exegesis and to the core of Paul’s letter. The clear cross-reference between epistle and exegetical excursus suggests not merely a superficial intertextual link, but also a deeper connection between two related biblical passages: Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 34. This fact links Paul’s secondary-level exegesis more concretely with Philo’s exegetical poetics. For while Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34 does not amplify a primary lemma per se, it does follow fast upon an allusion to Jeremiah’s renewed covenant (Jer 31[38]:31; 2 Cor 3:6). In trying to understand what light Paul’s pairing of Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 34 might shed on his epistolary context, it is worth noting that, according to recent reconstructions of the Palestinian three-year lectionary cycle, Jer 31: (32)33–39 provided the hafṭarah reading for Exod 34:27–35 during the month of Av.⁴² While this might suggest that Paul has drawn an exegetical connection between them on the basis of a traditional Jewish lectionary, in the Palestinian three-year cycle, the crucial verse Jer 31:31 is omitted from the hafṭarah. Nonethe-

 See Gelardini, “Hebrews,” 126. See also Yosef Ofer, “Sidre Nevi’im u-Ketuvim,” Tarbiz 58 (1989), 155–190, esp. 180, line number 70. The dating of the fixing of hafṭarot as well as the dating of the Palestinian three-year cycle is debated. Luke 4 and Acts 13 are often called upon as evidence of hafṭarot readings in the first century and Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures, traces the existence of a special hafṭarah cycle in contemporary Alexandria. Lee Levine traces the origins of the hafṭarah in Palestine to the Maccabean period; see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 501; see also Ben Zion Wacholder, “Prolegomenon” to Jacob Mann, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus with a Hebrew Section containing Manuscript Material of Midrashim to these Books (LBS; New York: Ktav, 1971 [repr. 1940]), xv; Gelardini, “Ancient Synagogue Homily,” 108–109. For further discussions pertinent to the dating debate, see Tzvi Novick, “Eschatological Ignorance and the Haft ̣arah: On Acts 13:27,” NovT 54 (2012): 168–75; and Ruth Langer and Steven Fine, eds., Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005).

5.3 Conclusion

251

less, the fact that these two texts were paired in the later Jewish lectionary cycle certainly suggests a similar interpretive logic and covenantal concern underlying Paul’s introduction of an exegesis of Exodus 34 at just this point in the letter.⁴³ In both Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 34, the figure of Moses and the theme of covenant renewal loom large. Although the law given to Moses in Exodus 34 was chiseled in stone (Exod 34:1), this was not the first time the law had been given. Because of Israel’s idolatry with the Golden Calf and Moses’ subsequent destruction of the two tablets, God saw fit to give the law a second time. As such, Exodus 34 represents Israel’s first covenant renewal ceremony, setting the precedent for the prophecy in Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation.⁴⁴ Paul’s awareness of the narrative analogue between Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 34, as Scott Hafemann and others have pointed out, suggests that Paul’s choice of this episode of Moses’ shining face was made from more than the simple consideration of Paul’s “unveiled” preaching, but draws on the deeper theologoumenon of covenant renewal present in the text.⁴⁵

5.3.2 Paul’s Opponents The fact that the themes of covenant renewal and heart-written law have a place not only in Paul’s exegetical excursus but also in the main thread of his letter— and that it is this theme in particular that Paul’s exegesis is redactionally keyed to amplify—provides us with a point of entry into his argumentative aims. It also offers a means of reassessing the perennial question of the identity of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians.

 Neither does the witness of the integration of these texts remain purely at the level of lectionary cycle. There exists a fragmentary qedushta of the paytan Yannai for this Sabbath. While Jeremiah 31 is not directly cited, there are allusions to this text. Thus, as late as the sixth century, the liturgical connection between Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 34 proved a fruitful source for expression of covenant renewal within Judaism. For the piyyut, see Zvi M. Rabbinovitz, ed., The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai according to the Triennial Cycle of the Pentateuch and the Holidays: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary [Hebrew], (2 vols; Jerusalem, 1985–87), 1:359–63.  See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 607. There, Childs claims along with Wellhausen that Exodus 34 is fundamentally comprised of J’s version of the Sinai covenant. Then he adds: “The theme of covenant renewal, which is confined to vv. 1, 4, 28b, is redactional.”  Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 34, n. 103.

252

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

The primary reason why this latter question remains disputed is that Paul says so little in 2 Corinthians about the people with whom he is contending.⁴⁶ Paul’s opponents in 1 Corinthians are far more visible and thus it comes as no surprise that ever since the landmark study of F. C. Baur on the factionalism in Corinth attested in 1 Corinthians, scholars of 2 Corinthians have looked to Paul’s previous letter for some clue as to the nature of the later disputes.⁴⁷ In 2 Corinthians itself, Paul’s exegesis of Exodus and its apologetic frame have provided primary pieces of evidence for many contextual reconstructions of Paul’s opponents. In what follows, I will lay out four major positions on Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians, noting their connection to the factions mentioned in 1 Corinthians, and pointing to their use of 2 Cor 3:7–18. I will then offer my own assessment of the most likely scenario, based on the study of the foregoing chapter. Two words of caution: first, because of the need to survey a large body of literature briefly, I cannot hope to offer a precise taxonomy of views on Paul’s opponents.⁴⁸ Some would perhaps prefer me to separate views that, for the sake of concision, I have lumped together below. Such generalization, however, is necessary to get a lay of the land. The nuances of particular scholars’ views will be dealt with as I begin to present my own position on the subject. Second, I have not attempted here to be exhaustive, noting all scholars who adhere to a particular view. For the sake of this discussion, it will be enough to present one or two representative adherents of each stance. The first standard modern-critical position on the question of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians is that they are (1) Judaizing missionaries from either Jerusalem or Antioch. This position, supported in recent years by R. P. Martin and Michael D. Goulder,⁴⁹ is rooted in Baur’s detection of a “Cephas” party in 1 Cor 1:12. On this reading, Paul’s halakhic struggles with the “pillar” Cephas in Antioch, narrated in Gal 2:11–21, had already followed him to Achaea by the time he

 Furnish, II Corinthians, 48–54. On this subject, see now Paul B. Duff, Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 (NovTSup 159; Leiden: Brill, 2015). Duff’s study appeared while this book was in page proofs, too late to be seriously engaged here. Happily, its conclusions complement and confirm many aspects of the present work, even though I differ from Duff at several points as well.  Ferdinand Christian Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom,” TZTh 4 (1831): 61–206.  For a good introductory overview of scholarship on the nature of the religious-historical conflict driving 1 Corinthians, see Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (ed. E. Adams and D. Horrell; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004).  R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, lii – lxi; Michael D. Goulder, “Σοφία in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 37 (1991): 516–534.

5.3 Conclusion

253

wrote 1 Corinthians and had resurged, with the arrival of new missionaries, in the crisis which precipitated 2 Cor 2:14–7:4. Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34, on this reading, becomes a condemnation of his Judaizing opponents in the strongest terms, directly refuting their attempts to believe in Christ and command certain “works of the Law” as universally binding. Several major studies of 1 Corinthians subsequent to Baur, however, have argued that the rhetoric of 1 Corinthians itself does not evince the same kind of anti-halakhic polemic with Judaizing Christianity found in Galatians. The Corinthians’ problems were caused, primarily, not by an overly literal adherence to the Law but to an overdeveloped sense of wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual freedom, which permitted them to transgress the natural law followed even by Gentiles (1 Cor 5:1). As such, a second view regarding Paul’s opponents, in both Corinthian letters, is that they are (2) “Gnostics.” On this view, Paul’s opponents in 1 and 2 Corinthians are essentially one and the same.⁵⁰ The Gnostic view, accepted by Rudolf Bultmann and championed most vociferously by Walter Schmithals, has received fewer adherents in recent years due to the second-century dating of much Gnostic material and the critical nuancing of the meaning of the term “Gnostic” itself.⁵¹ A third view, which has gained major traction in recent years, and which stands to a certain degree on the opposite side of the spectrum from the (1) “Judaizing apostles” position is the position of Bruce Winter and George Van Kooten, who argue that Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians are a band of (3) rival Christian sophists. Drawing on studies of the revival of Greek oratory and political rhetoric in the Second Sophistic⁵²—as well as the centrality of Corinth as a place for sophistic performance, as exemplified by figures like Dio Chrysostom —Van Kooten claims that the primary attack on Paul stems from his weak physical appearance and failure to speak in person at sophistic standards.⁵³ This view

 See Georgi, Opponents, 1–25.  Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (J. E. Steeley, trans.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1971). For a contemporary criticism of this position, see Robert McL. Wilson, “How Gnostic were the Corinthians?” NTS 19 (1972–73): 65–74.  Important studies of the Second Sophistic include Glen W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969); Ewen L. Bowie, “The Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic,” Past and Present 46 (1974): 3–41, and idem, “The Geography of the Second Sophistic: Cultural Variations,” in Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic (ed. B. E. Borg; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 65-83; Christopher P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978); and Tim Whitmarsh, The Second Sophistic (GR 35; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 328: “What seems to be at issue in 2 Cor 3, when understood in such a polemical setting, is the nature of Moses’ body, which is healthy, dazzling

254

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians bears some (though perhaps only superficial) connection to Dale B. Martin’s view that Paul’s opponents in 1 Corinthians are best categorized as “the Strong,” who are neither Gnostics nor those with an overly-realized eschatology, but rather a different social class, whose worldview is structured around “hierarchy.” These “Strong” have overlooked the social-somatic concerns of the “Weak,” whose social group was more concerned with the possibility of the body’s pollution than with its order.⁵⁴ In this latter view of Paul’s opponents as sophists, Paul’s exegesis of Exodus becomes a rebuttal of a kind of Christian-Jewish sophism, in which the Moses of Exodus 34 was already being deployed by Paul’s opponents as a paradigm of their “strong” rhetorical presence. All three views mentioned above, the (1) “Judaizing Christian” view, the (2) “Gnostic” view, and the (3) “Sophist” view of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians have weaknesses, particularly with regard to the foregoing study of 2 Cor 3:7– 18. On the one hand, the (1) “Judaizing Christian” view, while adequately noting the importance of Jewish covenant renewal themes in both epistolary frame and exegetical excursus, imports without warrant the historical background of the Galatian crisis into the situation at Corinth. While this is not implausible, I think it does not do justice to the contextual clues present in the Corinthian correspondence itself. Both the (2) “Gnostic” and (3) “Sophist” views, while picking up on the contextual clues of 1 Corinthians, fail to adequately address the Jewish, covenantal concerns of both frame and allegorizing exegesis.⁵⁵ It is better, therefore, to opt for a fourth solution, supported by scholars as diverse as Dieter Georgi and Victor Paul Furnish, that Paul here is wrestling with a rival set of (4) Christian ministers steeped in the philosophical and apologetic traditions of Hellenistic Judaism.⁵⁶ This position adopts the strengths of both the (1) “Judaizing Christian” view and the (2) “Gnostic,” and (3) “Sophist” views without also embracing their shortcomings. On the one hand, viewing Paul’s opponents as Hellenistic-Jewish Christian ministers does not deny that the message of Paul’s rivals had a certain gnoseological and rhetorical appeal and resplendent and, as such, provides an exemplar for the Corinthian sophists: this perfect physical appearance contrasts with Paul’s weak stature.”  Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).  As Rainer Hirsch-Luipold put it in personal communication, there is certainly anti-sophistic polemic in 2 Corinthians (as in Philo’s writings), but that does not necessitate the view that Paul was contending with actual sophists. Presumably, anti-sophistic invective could be part and parcel of any Platonizing discourse in the first century.  Georgi, Opponents, 315–319; Furnish, II Corinthians, 48–54. This position can be correlated with the views on 1 Corinthians held by Pearson, Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology; Horsley, Wisdom and Spiritual Transcendence; Sellin, Streit; and Sterling, “Wisdom among the Perfect.”

5.3 Conclusion

255

to it. On the other hand, viewing Paul’s opponents as Hellenistic-Jewish Christian ministers also recognizes the inner-Jewish nature of the conflict and hence, stands in continuity with the Judaizing Christian view. Critically, however, it links Paul’s rival ministers in 2 Corinthians to his colaboring with another Jewish figure in 1 Corinthians, not Cephas but Apollos (1 Cor 1:12; cf. 1 Cor 3:1–15).⁵⁷ To characterize Paul’s struggle with rival ministers as an “inner-Jewish” dispute may initially seem puzzling. It is often held that Paul’s Corinthian church was largely Gentile, and we do learn from Paul’s own account of his meeting with the “pillars” that he envisioned his calling as an apostleship “to the gentiles” (Gal 2:7–8). However, that apostolic division of labors, which was seemingly necessary in Palestine and Antioch, may not have held so strictly on the cutting westward edge of Paul’s mission. According to Acts, Paul’s first approach in Corinth was to preach in the synagogue (Acts 18:4), and while the synagogue inscription discovered in Corinth probably dates from later than the time of Paul’s visit, Philo provides literary support for the depiction in Acts when he mentions Corinth as a Roman colony with a substantial Jewish presence (Legat. 281) in the first century. Prisca and Aquila, moreover, Jews from Rome, seem to have been well-known to the Corinthian “church” (1 Cor 16:19) and Apollos himself, if Luke can be trusted on the biographical details (and we have no reason to doubt him in this instance), is described as Ἰουδαῖος … ᾿Aλεξανδρεὺς, ἀνὴρ λόγιος (Acts 18:24; Cf. Acts 19:1). Finally, the fact that Paul addresses both of his Corinthian letters to “the church” (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1), rather than to “the churches” of Galatia (Gal 1:2) may suggest that the early Christians in this church Paul founded, despite their many factions and rivalries, did consist of both Jews and Gentiles together. This view also makes the best sense of both Paul’s apologetic frame and the exegesis of Exodus itself. While it is true that in 2 Cor 3:1 Paul depicts his opponents simply as peddlers with letters of recommendation, which might refer to a sophistic group, by 2 Cor 3:3 (cf. 2 Cor 3:6), these letters have been carved ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις (cf. Exod 34:1), a turn which hardly makes sense unless a correct interpretation of Moses’ ministry is somehow germane to the difference between Paul’s ministry and that of his rivals. Apollos, again according to Acts 18:27, acquired letters of recommendation from the “brothers” in advance of his mission to Achaea. As students of Platonizing Judaism, Christian ministers of this Hellenizing variety may have been sowing exegetical seeds of dissention similar to

 This does not necessitate an identity between the Corinthian pneumatics of 1 Corinthians and the rival ministers of 2 Corinthians 3—both groups, however distinct, seem nonetheless to have adopted similar Hellenistic-Jewish traditions as their own.

256

5. Digressive Poetics: 2 Cor 3:7–18 as Exegetical Amplification

those that seem to have caused so much trouble in 1 Corinthians 15 on the subject of the resurrection. As I will argue in the final chapter of this study, however, the topic of dissension in 2 Corinthians seems not to have been resurrection, but the related subject of Christian ethical transformation in the light of the risen Jesus.

5.3.3 Re-visioning Moses It is unlikely that we will ever recover the exact teachings of Paul’s opponents. One thing the foregoing study does suggest, however, is that their understanding of Moses and the Pentateuch posed problems for Paul. Paul’s concern with scriptural interpretation surfaces in 2 Cor 3:14–15, 4:4, where non-Christian Jewish synagogue reading practices are presented by Paul as analogous to the similarly-flawed hermeneutical and ethical teachings of the rival ministers. This analogy, as suggested above, is substantive: it signifies Paul’s real concern with his opponents’ method of reading Moses’ letter, as well as his own letters/gospel/ person. New light on Paul’s context and thought may thus be derived from further comparison of Paul’s presentation of Moses in 2 Cor 3:7–18 with the kinds of Hellenizing Jewish tradition found in Philo’s commentaries.⁵⁸ In the final chapter of this study, I will turn explicitly from form to content, looking at the Mosaic aspect of Paul’s excursus in 2 Cor 3:7–18 and the way that Paul critiques, engages, and transforms what we know of Hellenistic Jewish portraits of Moses in presenting his Gospel to the Corinthian church.⁵⁹ While it may be the case that in 2 Cor 2:14–7:4 Paul is addressing a different set of opponents than those in 1 Corinthians and that he has become more open to incorporating Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom traditions,⁶⁰ his distance from Philo on certain key points will also reveal

 While Philo’s writings are clearly inflected by his distinctive genius, the anthological character of his writings and his use of diverse sources suggests that they may be more representative of diasporan Jewish teaching than is sometimes presumed. For this view, see, e.g., Gregory E. Sterling, “Recherché or Representative? What is the Relationship between Philo’s Treatises and Greek Speaking Judaism,” SPhA 11 (1999): 1–30; and idem, “Recluse or Representative? Philo and Greek Speaking Judaism Beyond Alexandria,” SBLSP (1995): 595–616. For a critique of Sterling’s position, see Maren Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (TSAJ 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 10.  In treating both form and traditional content in the fourth Gospel, Borgen’s monograph, Bread from Heaven, serves as something of a scholarly template for this study of Paul.  This point is argued succinctly by Georgi, Opponents, vii, albeit in outdated terms, when he argues that “in 2 Cor., Paul is the Gnostic, not his rivals.”

5.3 Conclusion

257

that the use of similar commentary patterns does not entail a wholesale acceptance of their content. Even as Paul depended upon the Alexandrian translation of the Bible and was becoming increasingly aware of Platonizing traditions being popularized in the Diaspora by Alexandrian Jews,⁶¹ he continued to receive and transform these traditions in light of the “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12) which he had in the beginning. Paul’s aim is not absolutely to reject Moses as a paradigm, but to appropriate him as both a foil and an exemplar for renewed covenant ministry, as transfigured by his Christology. The rhetorical and thematic links between 2 Cor 3:7–18 and the epistolary frame suggest that Paul is, in fact, drawing several different points of connection between his own ministry and Moses’, such that the minister of the first covenant renewal appears both unlike and like Paul on a number of scores. It is to Paul’s refashioning of Moses’ image, using the crude material of Israel’s Greek scriptures and the technical skills of Jewish exegetical practice, that we now turn.

 In addition to the similarities between Paul’s and Philo’s writings charted above, Paul’s dawning knowledge of the Wisdom of Solomon in 2 Corinthians and Romans provides a second key witness arguing in favor of the theory that his thought underwent a process of “diasporization.” See Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 25: “It seems that Paul had read the Wisdom of Solomon. Twice in 2 Cor. 5:1–10 he appears very close to a particular passage (9:15) in that work, and his account of Gentile (lack of) knowledge of God in Rom. 1:19–23 also appears to be drawing on it.” For more on the Platonizing elements of 2 Cor 5:1 –10, see Aune, “Anthropological Duality.” For Paul’s knowledge of Wisdom of Solomon in Rom 1:18–32, see Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human”; and James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1988), 53.

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle Tradition μηδὲ κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ. But let me not see your form reflected in anyone save in you yourself, O God! ~Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.101 ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος. But we all, seeing the glory of the Lord reflected with unveiled face, are being transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord, the Spirit. ~2 Cor 3:18

6.1 Introduction: Paul among the Sophists and the Exegetes This study has primarily investigated the form of Paul’s interpretation of Exodus in 2 Cor 3:7–18, using parallel examples of secondary-level exegesis from contemporaneous homilies, treatises, and letters, as well as from Jewish and Platonist commentaries as points of reference. Since secondary-level exegesis is defined by its dependence on both the text of scripture and also a primary theme, it seems fitting to include here a study of the content of Paul’s exegesis as well.¹ At the end of the last chapter, I began to address this subject in a preliminary way, considering the integration of themes from Paul’s exegesis of Moses’ descent from Mount Sinai with the aims of the surrounding letter. This current chapter resumes that argumentative thread and explores the meaning of Moses’ ministry in Exodus 34 for the Pauline church at Corinth. As I noted in my formal investigation of Paul’s exegesis, some of the most compelling parallels to 2 Cor 3:7–18 appear in the Alexandrian tradition, as represented by Philo, Ps.-Philo’s De Jona and De Sampsone, the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. This new evidence contributes to the cumulative case for Alexandrian influence on Paul’s opponents in Corinth,

 In organizing this comparative study of Pauline exegesis around both form and theme, I clearly take a cue from Peder Borgen, whose exemplary study, Bread from Heaven, follows a similar procedure in investigating a different set of exegetical Moses traditions. What makes my study more challenging than Borgen’s, however, is the absence of exact topical overlap between Paul’s exegesis and Philo’s secondary-level expositions in the Allegorical Commentary.

6.1 Introduction: Paul among the Sophists and the Exegetes

259

and indeed, on his own developing thought in the Corinthian correspondence as well as in Romans. Scholars who agree that there is a substantial connection between 2 Cor 3:7– 18 and the Alexandrian Jewish tradition configure this relationship in different ways. Dieter Georgi, for instance, developing one line of Windisch’s “insertion” theory, hypothesized that Paul had taken over an exegesis or homily on Moses nearly verbatim from his Corinthian opponents and only lightly tweaked it to bring it into line with his own thought. This would account for its digressive character as well as some of the other Hellenistic-Jewish aspects of the exegesis.² In the previous chapter, however, I argued—largely on literary-critical grounds— for the rhetorical unity of 2 Cor 2:14–4:6. The digressive aesthetic of Paul’s exegesis fits well within the known practices of Hellenistic Jewish commentary. This conclusion, if accepted, would argue against the complexity of Georgi’s otherwise brilliant hypothesis. But what about the more nuanced view of George Van Kooten and others that Paul has taken, if not a complete sermon, then at least his subject matter and ultimately the biblical text of Exod 34:29–35 (as a pet prooftexting pericope) from his opponents?³ This position has, at first glance, several points to commend it. Both the form and substance of Paul’s exegesis suggest its connection with a Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandrian vintage. This hypothesis also aligns with the conclusion of the previous chapter that Paul’s opponents were most likely Hellenized-Jewish Christians. It seems quite plausible that Paul’s struggle centered on the contested figure of Moses. One may even admit that Paul employs an anti-sophistic rhetoric in this passage, one that potentially includes invective against the cultivation of an overly manicured self-presentation. But that Moses’ “sophistic” portrayal by certain Hellenistic Jewish authors (a point which is, in itself, debatable) represents his only or primary point of interest for Paul’s opponents is surely reductive, given the complex web of Mosaic themes running throughout both Paul’s exegesis and epistolary frame. To rehearse, then, the arguments against the exclusively sophistic interpretation ever so briefly: first, the claim that Paul’s reference to συστατικαί ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor 3:1) invokes a sophistic context overparticularizes the reference.⁴ Many groups, including sophists, wrote and prized letters of recommendation, includ-

 Georgi, Opponents, 250.  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 334.  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 318–320.

260

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

ing early Hellenistic Jewish Christian missionaries.⁵ Second, Van Kooten has unconvincingly argued that Paul’s opponents are being critiqued primarily for their sophistic self-presentation and not for a more substantive theological position.⁶ That Moses’ primary interest for Paul’s opponents lies in his physiognomy and rhetorical prowess simply does not do justice to the complex web of theological motifs drawn from Exodus 34. Third, it seems more than likely that anti-sophistic invective went hand-in-hand with a variety of platonically inflected discourses (of which I consider both Philo and Paul species, although some consider not even Philo a “Platonist” in the fullest sense) in the first century of the Common Era; this need not imply the presence of actual or identical groups of sophists.⁷ Neither does an anti-sophistic invective necessarily imply that that rhetoric and physiognomy were the primary faults being targeted to the exclusion of philosophy and theology. Fourth, that Paul’s opponents are actually Christian sophists of the caliber of Dio Chrysostom—or that anyone would think to compare or confuse Paul with such as these—seems to me highly unlikely. If Philostratus is to be trusted, sophists from the eastern Mediterranean, despite many rhetorical accomplishments that exceeded Paul’s, garnered ridicule on account of their unfortunate use of prose rhythm, their Cappadocian accents, and their inability to properly Atticize.⁸ Such high stylistic concerns are barely on the radar of an Alexandrian Jew like Philo, let alone the Pharisee from Tarsus. Despite his homespun, intuitive rhetorical sophistication—one which probably involved some Greek educa-

 See particularly Acts 18:27, where Apollos is sent to Achaea with letters from the “brothers.” Paul’s letter to Philemon, in a different vein, certainly commends and upholds the estranged Onesimus to his master.  Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 335–339, focuses on the anti-sophistic aspect of Paul’s apology, although he also suggests parallels for Paul’s Christology in this passage drawn from 2 Enoch and its Moses-Adam polemic.  As I mentioned in the previous chapter, Rainer Hirsch-Luipold made this point in similar terms in personal conversation. The critique extends to Winter’s seminal work on this subject (Philo and Paul among the Sophists) as well. In this regard, one does well to heed Bowie, “Geography of the Second Sophistic,” 69, who speaks of “the virtual absence of sophists from the undeniably learned city of Alexandria.” Obviously, sophists declaimed in Alexandria, but it was apparently not a home-grown phenomenon.  On these and a variety of other invective tropes in Sophistic circles, see Bowie, “Geography of the Second Sophistic,” 66–67. The critique of Asianist rhetoric more broadly is in play at least as early as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but the degree to which this critique penetrated popular Jewish circles in Tarsus or Corinth by the mid-50s C.E. is difficult to ascertain. The point here is not only that Paul fails to conform to these standards, but that he does not really seem to be aware of them at all.

6.1 Introduction: Paul among the Sophists and the Exegetes

261

tion, although the extent and context of this is still fiercely debated⁹—Paul must have seemed, to those properly schooled in the whole spectrum of Greek paideia and accustomed to the verbal bouts of professional sophists and philosophers, at best a σπερμολόγος (Acts 17:18),¹⁰ and at worst, a babbling Cilician barbarian (Rom 1:14).¹¹ Finally, Van Kooten’s hypothesis simply seems too good to be true, at least from Paul’s vantage point. As I argued in the previous chapter, Exod 34:29 – 35  For a “lower” view of Paul’s Greek education, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 38; and more recently, on independent grounds, Schellenberg, Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education. Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975): 353–79.  Luke’s characterization of Paul in this fashion in an Athenian context certainly represents the way his writings and legacy may well have been received by the stylists of the Second Sophistic. Especially given the novelistic elements of Acts, it seems plausible that Luke’s corpus far more than Paul’s might be illuminated by considering the new literary climate blossoming in the latter half of the first century.  It is often claimed that Paul’s coming from Tarsus (see Acts 22:3) suggests that he possessed an advanced Greek rhetorical training. While Tarsus was clearly no educational or rhetorical backwater (see Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.12–15), several considerations warrant cautious appropriation of this datum from Acts. The first is that Paul makes no claim of a connection with Tarsus in his letters. That his home at the time of his conversion was more likely in the northern Levant rather than in Jerusalem has been argued by John Knox and others on the basis of Gal 1:15–24—and this seems likely. Ewen Bowie’s recent work on the invented geographies of Philostratus, however, suggests that the itineraries of famous sophists may well be, in part, idealized (see Ewen Bowie, “Mapping Greece: Apollonius’ Authorised Version,” in Lieux de mémoire en Orient grec à l’époque impériale [ed. Anne Gangloff; Bern: Peter Lang, 2013], 37–61). Thus we cannot rule out that Luke himself, writing at the dawn of the Second Sophistic, may also have had rhetorical and theological motivations for crafting Paul’s geographical matrix as he does. Intriguingly, Bowie, “Geographies of the Second Sophistic,” 68, suggests that Tarsus was later considered a “less prestigious city” among the sophist “big five” (Athens, Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna, Rome; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13). According to Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.4.568, moreover, Alexander of Aegeae got his start there before moving up to the big leagues in Antioch. That Paul’s geographical pedigree in Luke follows a similar “type” to Alexander’s ought perhaps to make us at least take a second look. Even if Paul grew up and was educated in Tarsus, however—and this seems probable—we have no way of knowing whether his particular Jewish community participated in the full range of Greek education (φιλοσοφία καὶ ἡ ἄλλη παιδεία ἐγκύκλιος) available there, as Philo apparently did in Alexandria. Nor do we know whether a strict Pharisaic family would have had any interest in the declamations of the sophists, who often spoke on topics drawn from Classical or Hellenistic antiquity, particularly on mythological and historical subjects. The literary differences between Paul’s and Philo’s corpora, furthermore, argue against Paul’s study even under a grammaticus, who might have taught him the poems of Homer and Euripides—figures whose poetic vocabulary is largely absent from Paul’s writings. On this, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 38: “a deep divide separates Paul and the Alexandrian here.”

262

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

is uniquely attuned to the language, scriptural themes, and polemical dynamics of Paul’s apology for his apostleship. That his opponents should have furnished him with precisely this passage as opposed to all others would seem to require a nearly providential stroke of good luck. In sum, then, while Winter and Van Kooten have identified one important aspect of Moses tradition at play in the Corinthian correspondence, and in 2 Cor 3:7–18 more specifically, one must be cautious not to overextend the anti-sophistic interpretation of the passage and eclipse other parts of the Moses tradition which stand closer to the center of Paul’s crosshairs. It is a particular view of Moses and scripture more broadly that is being critiqued, one which appears not to weigh seriously enough Moses’ relation to Jesus as eschatological Messiah and does not account for the new possibilities of scriptural reading enabled by the gift of the divine Spirit. Insofar as Van Kooten’s hypothesis depends upon Paul’s opponents selecting Exodus 34:29–35 largely on the basis of its pro-sophistic appeal, it fails to convince.

6.2 The Faces of Moses in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6 Corroborating evidence for my skepticism of the both Georgi’s and Van Kooten’s hypotheses comes from a statistical datum: the relative infrequency with which Exod 34:29–35 appears as a lemma in the Jewish commentary tradition in the first century. As many commentators have lamented,¹² the search for parallel ex-

 So Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 114: “Von großem Werte sind für uns jüdische Wiedergaben der Ex.-Erzählung. Leider behandelt weder Joseph[us] noch die Mechiltha die Perikope; um so wertvoller ist für uns die Äußerung Philos [Mos. 2.69-70] und vor allem die haggadische Ausschmückung in Ps.-Philos Antiquitates biblicae 121.” Despite Windisch’s high estimation of the Ps.-Philonic passage, the text’s date remains uncertain, and many scholars suggest a post70 date. Similarly, Furnish, II Corinthians, 227, who notes that “contemporary rabbinic interpretations of the passage are not extant,” but notes the potential relevance of 4 Esd 9:37, where the law is said to remain perpetually “in glory,” and adds: “one must reckon with evidence of welldeveloped traditions within Judaism which interpreted Moses ascent of Sinai as an enthronement, at which time Adam’s lost glory was bestowed on him.” Meeks, “Moses as God and King,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Randall Goodenough (NumenSup 14; ed. Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 354–71, points to a Samaritan midrash (M. Marqah v.4) and Debarim Rabbah 11.3 as preserving a tradition of Moses’ unfading glory, but these examples are manifestly too late to be used as evidence of a pre-Pauline tradition. In contrast, Childs, Exodus, 620–624, provides exegetical grounds for concluding that a Jewish midrash about Moses’ fading glory might well have existed, and need not have stemmed from a Christian source. McNamara, Palestinian Targum, 171–3, has argued for the influence of an Palestinian exegetical tradition, of the variety found in the Palestinian targumim, particularly Targum Ps.-Jon-

6.2 The Faces of Moses in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6

263

egeses of Exod 34:29–35, which might throw some light on Paul’s interpretation, yields few positive results. With the exception of short passages in Ps.-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (LAB 12.1) and Philo’s paraphrase in the Life of Moses (Mos. 2.69–70), one finds precious little on this pericope within the contemporaneous tradition.¹³ This is, admittedly, an argument from silence. But silence in this case may bear an important testimony. Surely it is odd, given Paul’s Platonizing interpretation of Exod 34:29–35, that Philo did not likewise seize on this passage as a source for extolling Moses? The answer to this quandary seems to be that Jews who wished to construct a model of Moses as ethical exemplar could in fact do so without Exodus 34. For instance, a survey of the commentary tradition shows that authors who wanted to discuss Moses’ ascent and decent from Mount Sinai turned far more frequently to Exodus 19–31 than to Exodus 34:29–35.¹⁴ Similarly, if one searches for discussions of Moses as priest or prophet in the tent of meeting or Moses’ role as spiritual visionary, one finds Jewish commentators lavishing far more attention on Exodus 33 than Exodus 34. In short, the evidence suggests that Exodus 34:29–35 was a Cinderella among popular Mosaic pericopes interpreted by Jewish commentators in the first century. Thus, if Paul’s Hellenistic-Jewish Christian opponents were talking about Moses—and it seems to me on the basis of his apology that we can claim at least this much—then they may well have been talking about Moses in Exodus 33. Paul’s choice of Exodus 34 sets up his own response to this tradition, in which Platonizing contemplation and apocalyptic messianism find a unique synthesis.

athan, in which Moses’ glory is explicitly mentioned (the MT does not actually use the Hebrew word for glory, ‫ ;)כבוד‬however, that concept clearly enters Paul’s exegesis through the Alexandrian LXX textual tradition. With the exception of Philo’s Life of Moses, the problem with all of these parallels is that a pre-Pauline date of composition cannot be demonstrated.  On the possibility of a tradition in 2 Enoch evoking Moses’ shining face in Exodus 34, see Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 339, who attributes the reference to Andrei Orlov.  One extreme instance of this preference for Moses’ first Sinai encounter in the exegetical traditions of this period occurs in Ps.-Philo LAB 12.1, where the author actually rewrites the description of Moses’ glorious and veiled visage from Exod 34:27–35 in his first descent from mount Sinai (prior to the golden calf incident), leaving Moses’ second descent from Mount Sinai (LAB 12.10–13.1) shorn of its former glory. Such preference may stem from a perceived lack of necessary connection between Exod 34:29–35 and the immediately previous story: hence, Childs, Exodus, 617: “The reference to the descent from the mount with the tablets forms a smooth transition from v.28; however, the passage is not closely related to the preceding incident with the Golden Calf. In terms of content, the story could have just as easily been attached to 31.18, as many literary critics have suggested.” Here, then, is an instance where the insights and instincts of ancient biblical exegesis and historical-criticism mutually reinforce one another.

264

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

Indeed, of all Paul’s interpretive decisions in this passage, the choice of Exodus 34 over the more common Exodus 33 is perhaps the most important. Exodus 33 presents Moses as a peerless mediator to Israel. The most pressing question seems to be whether Moses sees God face to face (Exod 33:1–11) or only sees his back (Exod 33:12–23). However one navigates this important dilemma, it does not radically diminish Moses’ stature as Israel’s intermediary. In Exod 34:29–35, to the contrary, Moses appears more aloof and withdrawn, hidden behind a veil in a private discourse with God to which all Israel is expressly not privy. Moses remains, nonetheless, as a tent visionary, a mediator of divine oracles, and the “apostle” of a renewed covenant. Paul’s choice of this pericope, then, in concert with his chosen commentary pattern, exercises significant influence on his theology of apostleship. As opposed to presenting Moses as an unqualified exemplar of apostolic ministry, Paul is enabled through this text to explicate Moses’ significance to the Corinthian church in a polyvalent way. Most commentators, of course, hardly think of 2 Cor 3:7–18 in terms of Mosaic exemplarity. Moses’ non-exemplarity, driven home by Paul’s οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς in 2 Cor 3:13, is initially far more striking. Clearly, Paul intends to use Moses as a “dissimile,” as Richard Hays argues (see below). This explicitly constructed differentiation from Moses, however, can also be over-emphasized. Limiting Moses’ role to the schema, “down (Adam) and up (Abraham) and down (Moses) and up (Christ),”¹⁵ as one New Testament scholar has recently put it, seems unnecessarily reductive. To develop a clearer account of Paul’s view of Moses, one needs to study the multifaceted image of both Moses and his veil that he paints. Rather than presenting a single, seamless portrait, Paul presents a series of discrete-but-interlocking vistas on Moses’ second, glorious descent. The Moses of Exodus 34 is thus not merely the minister of a stony covenant, but also the minister of a renewed covenant, who would, according to Deuteronomy 18, become the prototype of future prophetic figures like himself.¹⁶ Thus, the Pauline “dissimile” does not undermine the possibility of a constructive Christian Mosaic exemplarity.¹⁷

 Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 13.  On this subject, see the forthcoming Notre Dame doctoral dissertation of David DeJong, “A Prophet like Moses: Prophecy and Canon in Early Judaism and Christianity.”  See Hays, Echoes, 142: “The dissimile in 2 Cor. 3:12–4:4 allows Paul to appropriate some of the mythical grandeur associated with the Sinai covenant—particularly the images of glory and transformation—even while he repudiates the linkage of his ministry to that covenant.”

6.2 The Faces of Moses in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6

265

To accomplish this complex depiction, Paul has not, as some have claimed, simply allowed the Spirit to transcend the literal limitations of holy writ.¹⁸ Rather, Paul remains closely bound to the text and vocabulary of scripture, as well as to traditional, inherited patterns of exegesis, as he casts his new vision of Moses. By working verse by verse through a mid-length biblical lemma, following the commentary conventions I have described, Paul offers not a single exegetical point, but a string of interwoven reflections on his text. This allows him, importantly, to present Moses in a number lights. Thus, just as the so-called “new perspective” has offered a variety of views on Paul and the Law, so here I emphasize the need for a “nuanced perspective” on Paul’s interpretation of Moses. While previous studies of 2 Cor 3:7–18 have rightly focused on the aspects of Paul’s presentation of Moses that distinguish him from the apostle, in the current chapter, I also want to illustrate the positive dimensions of Paul’s Mosaic retrieval. This task, in addition to being less-frequently undertaken, is justified by the connections between Paul’s depiction of Moses in 2 Corinthians and the Exodus 33 traditions found in Philo that this study has unearthed. Far from descending from Mount Sinai as a simple foil to the Christian minister, Moses turns out to be both anti-hero and hero with multiple faces, a worthy rival and accomplice of Paul’s own protean self-comportment (1 Cor 9:19–23).¹⁹

6.2.1 Moses and the Pauline Diakonia in 2 Cor 2:14–4:6 Two particular ways that Paul presents his ministry as being like Moses’ ministry, which have been too little acknowledged in treatments of the Corinthian apology, deserve to be highlighted here at the outset. These two points correspond to the two parts of Paul’s exegesis, 2 Cor 3:7–11 and 2 Cor 3:12–18.²⁰ As argued in chapter two, this bifurcation is confirmed by Paul’s redactional insertion of

 I agree with Brevard S. Childs, Scripture’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 136, in his critique of Hays on this particular point.  So Meeks, “Christian Proteus.”  Bultmann, Second Letter, 84, argues for just this bifurcation of Paul’s exegesis, and even raises the possibility that the two halves arise from different sources: while 2 Cor 3:7–11 may come from a traditional source, 2 Cor 3:12–18 represents Paul’s authentic thought. Bultmann, however, also offers the possibility that both parts of the exegesis come from Paul, on the basis of certain connections with the surrounding context, and this seems to be his preferred position (Ibid.). Paul’s sequential pattern of exegesis, as demonstrated in this study, strongly supports the latter option; regardless of source, both halves of the exegesis belong together.

266

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

2 Cor 3:12 in the midst of his exegesis (cf. 2 Cor 3:4; 4:1) and by the repetition of a textual paraphrase at the head of each section involving the sons of Israel:²¹ 2 Cor 3:7b ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Μωϋσέως διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην. 2 Cor 3:13 πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου.

In what follows, I will devote attention first to 2 Cor 3:7–11 and then to 2 Cor 3:12– 18. Read in the light of Paul’s apology, these two sections highlight, despite the dissimile, (a) Paul’s self-identification as a prophet like Moses—albeit in a rather surprising way—and (b) Moses’ role as unveiled exemplar of all believers who turn to Christ. Taken together, these two observations reopen the question of Mosaic exemplarity in the Pauline epistles and particularly in the Corinthian correspondence. They further serve as a substantive link between Paul and the Alexandrian tradition, to complement the formal connection between their exegeses. Paul certainly did not hold Moses up as an exemplar in the same way as Philo; he nonetheless wants to claim both continuity and discontinuity with the Moses who knew God “face to face” (cf. Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10).

6.3 An Apostle Like Moses (2 Cor 3:7–11)? How does the Moses of 2 Cor 3:7–11 relate to Paul’s epistolary apology? Most strikingly, Paul paints him as a figure removed from the Christian apostolic ministry by a significant degree of glory. This does not mean that Moses is viewed here “negatively.” To the contrary, Paul’s threefold argumentation a minori ad maius, punctuated by the threefold repetition of a comparative formula,²² suggests a continuity between the ministries of the old and new covenants. That Paul may in fact be thinking of Moses’ διακονία as a typological allegory or mimesis of his own ministry is suggested by his clever use of the verb ἐντετυπωμένη in 2 Cor 3:7.²³ The glory of the first ministry, written in stone, remains visible, even as it is being eclipsed or rendered null by the glory of the second.²⁴ Paul’s syn-

 See chapters two and four for a further structural analysis of this pericope.  2 Cor 3:8, 9, 11.  The language does not come from Exodus 34 (which uses λαξεύω and γράφω), but may echo the similar phraseology describing the inscription of the diadem by Bezalel and Oholiab in LXX Exod 36:39 (MT 39:30): ἔγραψεν … γράμματα ἐκτετυπωμένα (A ἐντετυπωμένα).  It is important that Paul uses the present participle here, with a continuous aspect, to convey the transience of Moses’ glory/covenant (cf. Eph 2:15, in which the Deutero-Pauline author “re-

6.3 An Apostle Like Moses (2 Cor 3:7–11)?

267

krisis of the old and (re-)new(ed) covenant ministries in 2 Cor 3:7–11 thus bears a certain similarity to the synkrisis of Moses and Christ in Heb 3:1–6. In both texts, Moses renders “faithful” (Heb 3:5) service in his time; he is outshined by the coming of a greater διαθήκη/διακoνία (Heb 8:7–13). There is, however, one particular aspect of 2 Cor 3:7–11, absent from Heb 3:1– 6, which may seem to contradict this interpretation: Moses’ connection with death. In 2 Cor 3:7, 9, Paul calls Moses’ ministry the ministry of death (ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου) and the ministry of condemnation (ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως). Such a negative valuation of Moses’ ministry, which according to the Pentateuch is given to Israel for the sake of life (Deut 30:16), does not surface in Heb 3:1–6 in such absolute terms. In contrast to this ministry of death, Paul depicts the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:8–9 positively as the ministry of the Spirit (ἡ διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος, and hence “life” [see 2 Cor 3:6]) and the ministry of justification (ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης). This stark distinction between the two ministries, arising from the similar antithesis in 2 Cor 3:6, problematizes the otherwise positive characterization of Moses’ ministry in this section. Clearly, Paul intends to problematize, on Jeremianic and possibly also Platonic grounds,²⁵ the written aspect of Moses’ covenant. This does not, however, nullify the typological relationship between their ministries. In fact, Paul’s explicit characterization of Moses as a minister of death (2 Cor 3:7) draws an unexpected line of continuity between Moses’ ministry and his own. Perhaps surprisingly, Paul’s description of Moses’ ministry as a ministry of death partially echoes his description of his own ministry in 2 Cor 2:15–16: ὅτι Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν τῷ θεῷ ἐν τοῖς σῳζομένοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον, οἷς δὲ ὀσμὴ ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν. For we are the fragrant aroma of Christ to God, among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the former, we are the scent from death to death; to the latter, the scent from life to life.

The precise background of Paul’s metaphor here remains an interpretative crux. Many interpreters suggest a reference to Roman military victory processions (2 Cor 2:14: θριαμβρεύοντι), in which the burning of incense accompanied both

alizes” Paul’s eschatological horizon with the aorist, καταργήσας). I leave to the side the contested issue of whether καταργούμεν- in 2 Cor 3:7, 11 (cf. 2 Cor 3:13, 14) suggests a visible fading (Childs), theological obsolescence (Hays), or both.  For Plato’s critique of the written word, see Phaedr. 274c–278b.

268

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

victors and captors in their march within the city’s fabled walls.²⁶ Other scholars hear a not-so-veiled allusion to the Israelite apostasy at Sinai and the deadly consequences of idolatry.²⁷ More recently, Tzvi Novick has argued for a connection with the rabbinic trope of the Law as life-giving and death-dealing medicine,²⁸ which would fit nicely with the interpretation of Paul’s polemical context being suggested here. Whichever line one takes, it is clear that Paul envisions his own ministry not merely as a “ministry of life,” but as something of a dual-edged sword. Indeed, the fact that Paul uses the phrase “ministry of the Spirit” rather than “ministry of life” in 2 Cor 3:8 may be a further indicator implying a typological relationship between the Israelites’ rejection of Moses’ ministry and the failure of certain Corinthians to accept Paul’s. Paul, like Moses, recognizes that his apostolic reception will be mixed and that although he sets before the Corinthians life and death (Deut 30:15), not all will choose life. Paul’s incorporation of his Exodus exegesis in the second part of the epistolary frame (2 Cor 4:1–6) supports this typological reading of Moses’ ministry in a complementary way. There, Moses’ veiled face (2 Cor 3:13)—which seems at “face value” to assert a Pauline dissimile—having been transformed into a metonymy for the veiled text of Torah (2 Cor 3:14–15) then becomes analogous to Paul’s veiled “gospel” (2 Cor 4:3). Contrary to the initial antithesis of 2 Cor 3:6, both Moses and Paul must use written instruments in their covenantal ministries. This second qualification of the purely positive portrait of the new covenant in the first part of Paul’s exegetical excursus, brought about by his presentation of his own ministry as one of mixed blessings and curses on account of its par See Harold W. Attridge, “Making Scents of Paul: The Background and Sense of 2 Cor 2:14– 17,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 71– 88; and Roger D. Aus, Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14 – 17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle: An Example of the Combination of Greco-Roman and Judaic Traditions in the Apostle Paul (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005).  See Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, who insists that the whole of Exod 32– 34 must be read into the discussion here; and Regina Plunkett-Dowling, Reading and Restoration: Paul’s Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 1–9 (Diss., Yale University, 2001), 38, who attributes to the sacrificial reading of ὀσμή an apocalyptic valence as well: “If the reader chooses for the sacrificial allusion, she opens up an echo-chamber of resonances across Israel’s narrative history, its laws, its poetry, and its apocalyptic … I will demonstrate that not only does Paul intends [sic] a sacrificial allusion here, but as a Second Temple writer, he exploits the eschatological dimension of this fragrance imagery.”  Tzvi Novick, “Peddling Scents: Merchandise and Meaning in 2 Corinthians 2:14–17,” JBL 130 (2011): 543–49. See also Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, 174–76, 189–90, who mentions various other options as well.

6.3 An Apostle Like Moses (2 Cor 3:7–11)?

269

tially written form (2 Cor 3:15–16; 4:3–4),²⁹ not only highlights another digressive aspect of his exegesis, but also unveils the apostle as a minister like Moses (cf. Deut 18:15–19).³⁰ To speak of Moses as a type for Pauline apostleship in 2 Cor 3:7–11 (–18) trades on the ambiguous relationship between type and antitype elsewhere in Paul and in other early Jewish writings. Reading the sinful Adam as “a type of the one who is coming” in Rom 5:14, for instance, requires Paul to recognize both continuity and discontinuity between the first and second/last Adam. Adam is both image-bearer and transgressor. The Essene typological reading of King Zedekiah of Judah, traced in the discussion of 11QMelchizedek in chapter three, also proves highly relevant here. For the Essenes, King Zedekiah stands as a type of the heavenly Melchizedek. In addition to sharing a name (‫ מלכי צדק‬,‫)המלך צדקיהו‬, both figures “cry release” (‫קרא‬ ‫ )דרור‬for the righteous Judeans,³¹ and both play a role either in renewing the remnant’s covenant with God or in supporting the renewed-covenant community against its eschatological adversaries.³² Despite these similarities, Zedekiah also serves as a foil and antithesis of Melchizedek, as the Judean king that led Jerusalem into the Babylonian captivity. While King Zedekiah “cries release” in vain (like the ascendant Herodians and Pharisees in Jerusalem), Melchizedek, the true righteous king, will ultimately lead the Essene captives back, reversing the sin of Zedekiah, and pronounce the eschatological Jubilee. Paul’s construction of a Mosaic typology of apostolic ministry trades on a similar ambivalence. Moses anticipates the minister of a renewed covenant who proclaims spiritual freedom (2 Cor 3:17); and yet, according to a certain Jeremianic critique (LXX Jer 38:32; 2 Cor 3:13), Moses’ work also remains incomplete and awaits the fulfillment of an eschatological savior. That both Paul and the Es-

 That Paul himself recognized the rhetorical disadvantage of his dependence on letters elsewhere in his ministry, see Betz, Galatians, 24. This qualified “textual” critique of Moses tradition —which is simultaneously a self-critique—represents a first way that Paul’s interest in Exodus 34 extends beyond the physiognomic.  So Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel,” 31: “Paul implicitly portrayed his apostolic role in 2 Cor. 2:14–3:3 to be the eschatological counterpart to the role of Moses as the mediator par excellence between YHWH and his people … Paul’s authority seems to be explicitly anchored in his sufficiency as an apostle … and this sufficiency appears to be derived from his call to be an apostle as this is consciously modeled after the sufficiency of Moses in Exodus 4:10 LXX.”  Jer 34:8; 11QMelch 2.6.  Jer 34:8; for the renewed covenant in Essene thought, see CD 1.5–8, 2.2, 3.13, 6.19, etc. As a sectarian text (see Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries,” 157), 11QMelchizedek should be read against this backdrop.

270

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

sene commentator use Jeremiah as a fulcrum to generate what we might call “ambivalent” or “Janus-faced” typologies demonstrates the common, apocalyptic-Jewish matrix linking 2 Cor 3:7–18 and 11QMelchizedek.³³ Both figures look back on Israel’s failings and forward to her glorious future. It would be inaccurate, however, to insinuate that Moses and Zedekiah function as identical “types of types.” Within the narrative grammar of Israel’s history, Moses is clearly a protagonist, whereas Zedekiah is clearly an antagonist. Paul’s ambivalent typology of Mosaic apostleship thus begins at a different, more promising point than its Essene counterpart does. In developing his version of Mosaic exemplarity, Paul will also have recourse to the thought-world of the Platonizing Judaism of the Diaspora. While never losing its “apocalyptic default setting,”³⁴ Paul’s thought nonetheless broadens and blossoms under the bright allegorizing sun of his Hellenophone diasporan heritage, as he reengages with these traditions in the Corinthian correspondence. It is to the uniquely Platonizing Jewish contours of Paul’s thought that we turn in the second part of this chapter.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18): Mosaic Exemplarity in Paul, Philo, and the Epistle to the Hebrews The foregoing analysis of 2 Cor 2:14–3:11, 4:3–4 illustrates one way that Paul uses Moses traditions: to emphasize the life-and-death dealing power of his own ministry. Recent research on 2 Corinthians, moreover, suggests that Paul envisioned his ministry in Mosaic terms elsewhere in this complex collection of letters.³⁵ Turning to the second half of Paul’s exegesis in 2 Cor 3:12–18, one sees the figure of Moses undergoing a series of metamorphoses, from negative foil of the Christian apostle (2 Cor 3:12–13), to metonymy for the Jewish scriptures themselves (2 Cor 3:14–15),³⁶ to positive exemplar for all those in Christ and the Spirit

 Paul: LXX Jer 38:31–34; 11QMelchizedek: (Hebrew) Jer 34:8–22.  I owe this phrase to Margaret Mitchell, who used it in her lecture on the Corinthian Correspondence for the CJA colloquium at the University of Notre Dame. See also Mitchell, Birth of Christian Hermeneutics.  To cite one recent example, David Litwa has argued that Paul’s heavenly ascent vision, discussed in 2 Cor 10–13, may itself be patterned on a narrative of Mosaic ascent. Litwa, “Paul’s Mosaic Ascent,” 238–257.  Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 331–341, esp. 335, highlights 2 Cor 3:14–15 as the core of the second half of Paul’s exegesis, and suggests that in fact, Paul’s central theme here is the reading of

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

271

(2 Cor 3:16–18).³⁷ While the veiled and written nature of Moses’ ministry are clearly criticized, Paul’s final image of transformation through prayer in the presence of divine glory depends upon a positive evaluation of Moses as an exemplaric type for all Christians, which is reminiscent of Philo in certain key respects.³⁸ Paul’s construction of such a polyvalent portrait of Moses in 2 Cor 3:12–18 can be seen by approaching this passage from two different angles; first, by following the exegetical structure of the passage; second, by following the thematic development of Paul’s concept of parrhēsia, or “boldness” (2 Cor 3:12). The simplest way to view the mechanics underlying Paul’s “multi-faced” portrait of Moses is to attend closely to his exegesis of Exodus. Unlike 2 Cor 3:7–11, which fixes its sights statically on Exod 34:29–30, the second half of Paul’s exegesis (2 Cor 3:12–18) interprets the text of Exodus 34 at not one but two discrete points. 2 Cor 3:13–15 interprets Exod 34:33 [35], focusing on Moses’ veiled reflection of glory; 2 Cor 3:16–18 interprets Exod 34:34, highlighting Moses’ unveiled vision of glory in the tent of meeting. Paul thus paints Moses as a complex figure, whose visage is both veiled and unveiled. As a complement to this first approach, considering Paul’s polyvalent use of the term “boldness” offers a second angle from which to view Moses’ polyvalent portrait in this section. “Boldness,” which occurs in the pivotal hinge verse of 2 Cor 3:12 at the very center of the exegesis, renders the Greek word παρρησία, which has the objective meaning of “frank speech” and the subjective implication of “bold approach.”³⁹ The word occurs only five times in Paul’s undisputed epistles, twice, importantly, in 2 Corinthians.⁴⁰ So suggestive is Paul’s use of this

scripture. Cf. Hays, Echoes, 124–125, who insists that the passage is focused far more on ethics rather than hermeneutics. As the following study will demonstrate, I think Paul’s veil makes a statement about both hermeneutics and ethics, being located as it is on both the text and the heart.  Childs, Exodus, 623 similarly recognizes minor breaks and shifts of focus at 2 Cor 3:14 and 16.  For recent discussions of the relationship between the Mosaic traditions in Philo and 2 Cor 3:7–18 see Sterling, “The Image of God”; Rabens, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God; idem, “Transformation through Contemplation”; idem, “Divine Spirit and Human Spirit in Paul in Light of Stoic and biblical-Jewish perspectives,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner (ed. I. H. Marshall, idem, and Cornelis Bennema; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) 138–155; and idem, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT 2.283; Tübingen: Mohr, 2010), esp. chapters 5–6; M. David Litwa, “Transformation through a Mirror: Moses in 2 Cor 3.18,” JSNT 34 (2012): 285–97; idem, We are being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology (BZNW 187; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012); Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context.  Attridge, Hebrews, 111–112.  Undisputed epistles: 1 Thess 2:2; 2 Cor 3:12, 7:4; Phlm 8; Phil 1:20; Disputed epistles, including Pastoral Epistles: Col 2:15; Eph 3:12, 6:19; 1 Tim 3:13.

272

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

term that Rudolf Bultmann, in his lecture notes on this letter, entitles all of 2 Cor 2:14–4:6 “Paul’s παρρησία.”⁴¹ More recently, in a volume edited by John Fitzgerald, Paul Sampley has argued that Paul uses a “mixed” kind of parrhēsia throughout the entirety of 2 Corinthians 1–7.⁴² Paul’s polyvalent use of the term parrhēsia is closely linked with his polyvalent presentation of Moses. Parrhēsia is, on the one hand, precisely what Paul says Moses does not have when he speaks to the children of Israel through the veil (2 Cor 3:13). As I have argued at length elsewhere, Paul uses the word parrhēsia here in a second way as well.⁴³ While in 2 Cor 3:12–13, Paul speaks of a “horizontal” parrhēsia directed toward other human beings, which Moses does not exemplify, in 2 Cor 3:16–18, Paul describes a second kind of parrhēsia, a “vertical one,” to use the language of Michel Foucault,⁴⁴ which bespeaks an “unveiled” appearance before God in mystical vision of the divine image and glory. Moses, who lacks the first kind of parrhēsia in 2 Cor 3:13, becomes, by the end of the exegesis, the prime exemplar of this second kind of Pauline parrhēsia. In 2 Cor 3:16–18, Paul thus presents a theological construction of transformation according to the paradigm of Moses in the tent of meeting. This construction, however, does not arise from Paul’s unmediated contemplation of the scriptural text. Just as Paul drew on the form of the commentary, so also, it appears that he had at his disposal a corpus of Mosaic traditions, which he might reformulate according to the exigencies of the situation in Corinth. A great number of such Moses-tabernacle traditions are found within the writings of Philo, and perhaps not surprisingly, among Philo’s exposition of secondary lemmata in the Allegorical Commentary. While no substantive allegorical interpretation of Exod 34:29–35 has survived in Philo’s corpus, the Alexandrian does offer a substantial body of interpretations of Moses’ tent/tabernacle vision in Exodus 33. With the help of a similar family of exegetical traditions in the Epistle to the Hebrews, these writings of Philo will allow us to analyze the common and distinctive elements of Paul’s transformation of Mosaic exemplarity in 2 Cor 3:12–18. I will begin with those Philonic texts which portray Moses as parrhesiast,

 Bultmann, Second Letter, 61.  J. Paul Sampley, “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians,” in Philodemus and the New Testament World (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; NovTSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 295– 321, esp. 309.  See Cover, “Bondsman’s Boldness”; pace Furnish, II Corinthians, 230–31.  Michel Foucault, The Courage of Truth (= trans.: Le Courage de la Vérité: le Gouvernement de Soi et des Autres II: Cours au Collège de France [1983–1984]) (trans. Graham Burchell; ed. F. Gros; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011 [2008]), 326–7.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

273

priest, and tent visionary. From there, I will turn to an assessment of Mosaic exemplarity in 2 Corinthians.

6.4.1 Moses as Parrhesiast in Philo (Her. 1–21) and 2 Corinthians As a starting point in this comparison, it seems particularly relevant to the study of 2 Cor 3:7–18 that Philo portrays Moses as an exemplary parrhesiast in his treatise Quis rerum divinarum heres sit. While this might appear at first blush to stand in stark contrast to Paul’s portrait in 2 Cor 3:12, Philo paints Moses as a parrhesiast in this text no so much to highlight his (horizontal) capacity as prophet to Pharaoh or king and lawgiver for Israel, but with reference to his openness before God, his parrhēsia in the second (vertical) sense, through personal colloquy in the tent of meeting. This earns Moses the scriptural title “friend” of God (Exod 33:11): παρρησία δὲ φιλίας συγγενές· ἐπεὶ πρὸς τίνα ἄν τις ἢ πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φίλον παρρησιάσαιτο; παγκάλως οὖν ἐν τοῖς χρησμοῖς φίλος ᾄδεται Μωϋσῆς, ἵν’ ὅσα ἐπὶ θάρσει παρακεκινδυνευμένα διεξέρχεται φιλίᾳ μᾶλλον ἢ αὐθαδείᾳ προφέρεσθαι δοκῇ. Parrhēsia is kith and kin with friendship. For to whom does anyone speak with parrhēsia than to his own friend? Therefore, quite well is Moses hailed as “friend” in the [scriptural] oracles (cf. Exod 33:11), so that whatever daring statements have issued from his lips with boldness, they may seem to proceed from friendship rather than from stubborn presumption (Her. 21).⁴⁵

Moses, moreover, stands as Philo’s ideal parrhesiast not only as an individual person, but also as a symbol of all sages, who are friends of God (οἱ σοφοὶ πάντες φίλοι θεοῦ, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν ἱερώτατον νομοθέτην [Her. 21]). Several chapters earlier in the same treatise, Philo similarly points to Moses as the archetype of all those “who have put their faith in the God-sent love of wisdom, and not only speak with ordinary gentleness but shout with a louder cry … not made with mouth and tongue … but by the organ of the soul … [to] be apprehended by the mind’s musician [viz. God].”⁴⁶ These passages offer important parallels for understanding Paul’s depiction of Moses as an exemplary parrhesiast in 2 Cor 3:16–18. Just as in Philo’s exegesis of Exod 33:11, so also in Paul’s exegesis in Exod 34:34, Moses enters into the presence of divine glory and experiences transformation. By rewriting Exod 34:34 in

 Translation is mine.  Philo, Her. 14–15, trans. Colson.

274

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

2 Cor 3:16 without Moses as the explicit subject, Paul also opens a way into the spiritual tabernacle for all who turn to the Lord. In both Philo and 2 Corinthians, Moses’ presence in the tent/tabernacle signifies a broader allegorical possibility, that of a similar “unveiled” transformation through bold approach and prayer, in Philo’s case for “all the wise” (Her. 21) and in Paul’s for the more inclusive “we all” (2 Cor 3:18), signifying both the strong and the weak, apostles and Corinthian believers. Paul highlights Moses’ role as exemplaric model of parrhēsia for all believers —that is, for all Israel—not only by removing Moses’ name from his citation of Exod 34:34, but also by importing the verb ἐπιστρέφειν from Exod 34:31. While a minimalist interpretation of this change might suggest that Paul simply wants to highlight the necessity of “conversion” as the prerequisite for unveiled vision,⁴⁷ I think more can be said. Using the language of narratology, I suggest that Paul’s use of ἐπιστρέφειν in his modified citation of Exod 34:34 functionally has the effect of conflating two focalizing perspectives: that of Moses (Exod 34:34), on the one hand, and that of Aaron and “all the rulers of the congregation/synagogue” (Exod 34:31) on the other. Not only does Paul’s rewriting “democratize” the Mosaic perspective, lifting it up as an exemplaric possibility for others in Israel; it also suggests that the object of vision may be at once (in light of focalizer number one) God’s δόξα in the tent of meeting, as well as (in light of focalizer number two) the unveiled and transforming glory of God in the face of a mediator of a renewed covenant—Moses descending from the Mount Sinai in Exodus per the scenario of Exod 34:31, or Jesus as (Tabor?) lawgiver, in Paul’s rewritten version.⁴⁸ Of course, these Christological dimensions of Paul’s exegesis are largely implicit and underdeveloped: Moses and the Israelites remain in the foreground. Paul’s conflation of focalizing subjects and their objects, nonetheless, contains

 For this meaning of ἐπιστρέφειν in the New Testament more broadly, see Sterling, “Turning to God.” The elimination of εἰσέρχεσθαι, furthermore, need not alter the implicit locus of transformation, namely, in the presence of the divine kabōd in the tabernacle, as I will argue in subsequent pages.  In presenting these implicit interpretive pressures or horizons, I by no means intend to claim that Paul had them already in mind fully armed, as Athena ready to leap from the head of Zeus, or to conflate them with Synoptic accounts of the Transfiguration. Nor do I mean to bypass the critical debate about the meaning of κύριος in 2 Cor 3:16. Paul, rather, is engaged in a process of “meaning-formation” (Sinnbildung) as described by Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 210, in which thought outstrips contemporary language and categories. Meaning-formation thus consists for Paul in “the internal networking of pneumatology with theology proper (doctrine of God), Christology, soteriology, anthropology, ethics, and eschatology” (Schnelle, New Testament, 269).

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

275

the seeds of several later Christological developments that are worth mentioning here. First, Paul’s location of God’s glory both in Jesus’ face (2 Cor 4:6) and in the tent of meeting suggests inchoately the later theological identification of Jesus with the “holy of holies” in the tabernacle. This tradition is evinced in nuce in the Epistle to the Hebrews (for more on this, see the subsequent section), and Athanasius would later take it for granted in De incarnatione.⁴⁹ One might object, of course, that Moses’ vision of glory in Exodus 33–34 occurs in the tent of meeting (E) rather than the wilderness tabernacle (P).⁵⁰ However, the Hellenistic Jewish commentary tradition could elide the identity and symbolic significance of the two wilderness tents, along with their structures and appurtenances, on the basis of their common designation as σκηνή. We shall see further examples of this in the discussion of Philo below.⁵¹ Potentially also foreshadowed in Paul’s exegesis, by way of the second focalizing perspective (Aaron and the leaders of the synagogue), is the tradition of Israel (Moses and Elijah) turning to see Jesus’ glory on Mount Tabor, as reflected in the Transfiguration traditions of the Synoptic Gospels and 2 Pet 1:17–18. Luke’s account offers a particularly close parallel to Paul, in that Luke alone of the evangelists mentions that Jesus, Moses, and Elijah appeared on the mount “in glory.” The correspondence between Luke’s Transfiguration and Paul’s exegesis may in fact go even deeper at the traditional level. For while all three men, or at least Moses and Elijah, initially appear “in glory” (Luke 9:31 [cf. 2 Cor 3: 7, 8, 11]: οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ), Luke later says that Peter, James, and John “saw his glory, and the two men who were standing with him” (Luke 9:32 [cf. 2 Cor 3:18]: εἶδον τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς δύο ἄνδρας τοὺς συνεστῶτας αὐτῷ). Is

 So Heb 10:20: διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 285–287, who gives various interpretations of the explanatory phrase which would distance veil and flesh as simple equivalents of one another. For the stronger identification, see Athanasius, Inc. 40: πότε γὰρ ἐπαύσατο προφήτης ἢ ὅρασις απὸ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, εἰ μὴ νῦν ὅτε ὁ ἅγιος τῶν ἁγίων Χριστὸς παρεγένετο;  The source-critical history of Exodus 33:7–11 is disputed. Although many attribute it to E, cf. Childs, Exodus, 591, who argues that the passage reflects “an old tradition of the tent of meeting which parallels the later priestly account,” but does not specify the source.  Similarly, McNamara, Palestinian Targum, 172–73, has illustrated how Targum Ps.-Jonathan implicitly linked Moses’ glory in Exod 34:29–35 with the rabbinic ‫שכינה‬, and by theological and etymological connection, with the priestly ‫משכן‬. For many years, critical scholarship also held that the ark had been housed in E’s tent of meeting, a consensus which has now been definitively dislodged by Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 260–75.

276

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

the ascription of glory to Jesus alone in this latter verse merely the illusion of the apostles’ tired eyes? Or should one infer that the glory of the eponymous law and prophets (Luke 9:31) has been eclipsed by Jesus’ glory in Luke 9:32? Whatever the case, Luke’s Transfiguration scene shows, if not direct dependence on Paul, then at least a familiarity with the Christological tradition reflected in Paul’s exegesis. Considering this—admittedly digressive—exegetical study of Luke and Paul, the previous comparison of Paul and Philo appears in a new light. While Paul and Philo clearly share an interest in their respective religious communities imitating or participating in Moses’ vertical parrhēsia, the differences between their appropriations of this tradition are just as striking. To briefly enumerate several of them: First, for Paul, God’s gift of parrhēsia is not limited to a certain philosophical elite, to the σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα (1 Cor 1:26; see Philo, Her. 21), but extends to “we all” (2 Cor 3:18), the τελεῖοι (1 Cor 2:6). Second, whereas parrhēsia is understood largely as a kind of noetic speech in Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, Paul’s parrhēsia in 2 Cor 3:16–18 focuses on what Harold Attridge has called (in a different context) the “subjective aspect” of parrhēsia, namely, boldness of approach or right of access in prayer.⁵² Transformation, in Pauline parrhēsia, happens primarily through a kind of bold approach and Platonizing vision rather than noetic speech. The third and most distinguishing aspect of Paul’s and Philo’s variant versions of Mosaic parrhēsia pertains to the object of the sage’s speech or vision. For Philo, Mosaic dialogue with or vision of God is typically mediated by the Logos. Thus, in a well-known example, Philo interprets the theophany to Moses in the burning bush as an interaction with the Logos.⁵³ A similar Mosaic tradition undergirds 2 Cor 3:16–18, insofar as the Logos for Philo is also the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, the “same image” which appears as both source and end of Christian transformation in 2 Cor 3:18, 4:4.⁵⁴ In Alexandrian Judaism, furthermore, particularly in the Wisdom of Solomon which Paul seems to have known,⁵⁵ εἰκών and δόξα can be synonyms for the hypostasized σοφία of God.⁵⁶ This further suggests that a λόγος-εἰκών theology might undergird Paul’s description of the parrhesiast’s transformation in terms of a divine δόξα-εἰκών in 2 Cor 3:18, 4:4.⁵⁷

 Attridge, Hebrews, 111–112.  Philo, Mos. 1.66, where the voice is that of the “image of the One who is.”  Philo, Opif. 139; Leg. 1.31; 3.96.  For a recent discussion and history of scholarship, see Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human.” For 2 Corinthians in particular, see Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 25.  For a discussion of this point, see Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 338–9 .  Sterling, “Image of God.”

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

277

Despite these similarities, Paul’s thought also radically diverges from Philo at this point, since for Paul, God’s glory and image take a particular messianic shape. Even if messianism does appear to color some aspects of Philo’s description of the Logos,⁵⁸ Paul’s messianic transformation of the Hellenistic image theology is clearly differentiated from Philo’s in his identification of the messiah with Jesus of Nazareth. These three points of dissonance between Mosaic parrhēsia in Paul and Philo’s Quis rerum divinarum heres sit suggest that other parallels might be sought to further illuminate Paul’s development of the vertical parrhēsia tradition in 2 Cor 3:16–18.

6.4.2 Priestly Parrhēsia in the Epistle to the Hebrews and 2 Corinthians In fact, all three elements—the possibility of parrhēsia for all believers regardless of their philosophical acumen, the focus on the subjective “right of approach” aspect of parrhēsia, and its Christological dimension—come together in a text already mentioned in this study several times: the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews. This homily preserves further elements of the Christian parrhēsia tradition, scions of the same stock from which Paul also grew.⁵⁹ Rather than starting with the many similarities between the notions of vertical parrhēsia in 2 Cor 3:16–18 and the Epistle to the Hebrews, however, I would like to begin by pinpointing a difference between their presentations of this concept. Whereas Paul’s notion of vertical Christian parrhēsia is grounded on a Mosaic analogy (2 Cor 3:16–18; cf. Exod 34:34) and the removal of Moses’ veil in Christ (2 Cor 3:14), parrhēsia in Hebrews stems directly from imitating the bold approach of the heavenly tabernacle made by Christ himself. Christ’s gift of parrhēsia, furthermore, seems to be rooted in Christ’s high-priestly role, demonstrated clearly in Hebrews 10:19–22: Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ, ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἱερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ, προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀλιθινῆς καρδίας ἐν

 Philo does, in fact, engage popular Jewish messianism in two different ways, once in an extended section of De praemiis et poenis (79–172), where the messianic era is partially assimilated to the Stoic/Roman “Golden Age,” and again in a series of texts which link the messiah and the Logos, such as Conf. 62, where Philo interprets the title “Orient” (LXX Zech 6:12, as a secondary lemma to Gen 11:2) to signify the Logos. See Richard D. Hecht, “Philo and Messiah,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 139–68.  For further analysis of these similarities, see Cover, “Bondsman’s Boldness.”

278

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ. Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for entry into the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, on a fresh and living road which he has renewed for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh; and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with true heart in abundance of faith, our hearts purified from a bad conscience and our bodies washed with clean water.

In the theology of Hebrews, Christ’s high-priestly entrance into the heavens (Heb 4:14) has opened a new way for those who believe in Christ to approach the spiritual reality of God’s cultic glory. The anonymous homilist’s refrain, προσερχώμεθα, offered twice in the context of discussions of Christian parrhēsia (Heb 4:16, 10:22), suggests that this notion of bold-approach relies on a kind of “democratization” of priestly proximity,⁶⁰ resulting in the spiritual right of access of all believers to divine glory in prayer.⁶¹ Despite the differences between the primarily priestly parrhēsia of Hebrews and the prophetic, Mosaic parrhēsia of Paul in 2 Corinthians, my view, as indicated above, is that these two New Testament models of Christian parrhēsia toward God do in fact stem from a common tradition, one which can ultimately be anchored in the figure of Moses. To close the gap between 2 Cor 3:16–18 and Heb 4:14–16, 10:19–22, it will be necessary to consider two important pieces of evidence. I turn first to the initial instance of parrhēsia in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which does in fact occur in a Mosaic context (Heb 3:6). From an investigation of this important pericope (Heb 3:1–6) it will be argued that parrhēsia in Hebrews is connected with Moses, particularly in relation to his cultic role in the “house” of God. Second, the broader contours of this tradition of Moses as priest will then be traced in the writings of Philo, particularly in Philo’s interpretation of Exod 33:7. Only once a representative fund of Jewish and Christian traditions relating Moses, parrhēsia, tabernacle, and the priesthood are gathered can we bring the results of this tradition-critical study to bear on Pauline parrhēsia in 2 Cor 3:16–18.

 One of the aspects of parrhēsia’s semantic domain is the notion political equality, which stems from its origin as a characterization of the collective freedom enjoyed by all citizens of the Athenian polis to speak openly. On this, see D. M. Carter, “Citizen Attribute, Negative Right: A Conceptual Difference between Ancient and Modern Ideas of Freedom of Speech,” in Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (ed. I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen; MnSup 254; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 197–220. In Hebrews, and to varying degrees in Philo and Paul, one sees this “collective” dimension of parrhēsia transforming early Jewish and Christian interpretations of Moses.  For the reading of a priestly background to the verb προσέρχεσθαι, see Attridge, Hebrews, 141.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

279

I turn first to establishing the connection between parrhēsia and Moses in Heb 3:1–6. The critical verses are the last two of the synkrisis, Heb 3:5–6, which provide the “exegetical foundation” of the rhetorical comparison and hence, its theological basis:⁶² καὶ “Μωϋσῆς” μὲν “πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ” ὡς “θεράπων” εἰς “μαρτύριον” τῶν λαληθησομένων, Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς επὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ· οὗ οἶκος ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, ἐάν[περ] τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος κατάσχωμεν. And “Moses was faithful in his entire house as a servant (LXX Num 12:7), offering testimony (μαρτύριον, ibid.) to the things which were said; but Christ [was faithful] as a son over his house. And we are his house, if we should hold fast to the parrhēsia and the boast of hope (Heb 3:5–6).

Several factors suggest that the foregoing pericope connects Moses with a priestly role. In the first place, in the immediately preceding pericope, Christ is presented as a “faithful high priest” (Heb 2:17), proleptically looking forward to the synkrisis of Moses and Christ and Moses’ “priestly” faithfulness (πιστός) in Num 12:7 (Heb 3:5). Second, the selection of a text from Numbers in which Moses is presented as faithful in God’s “house” recalls a whole host of scriptural passages in which the temple is described in just such language (e.g. 2 Reg 7:1– 13). As Attridge puts it, here “the author [of Hebrews] again evidences the delight of the rhetorician and midrashist in the subtle and playful use of language, most apparent in the way he exploits the various metaphorical values of the term ‘house.’”⁶³ The word μαρτύριον (Heb 3:5), furthermore, echoes the σκηνὴ μαρτυρίου of Num 12:7, further suggesting a connection between house and tent/tabernacle. Finally, the broader pericope surrounding LXX Num 12:7, the narrative of Aaron and Miriam’s jealousy of Moses, confirms the impression that Moses’ role as servant here involves a more-than-prophetic function (LXX Num 12:6). Unlike mere prophets, to whom God speaks in riddles, Moses is the beneficiary of a plain-sense (lit. “mouth to mouth”) dialogue with God and has an unveiled vision of his glory”: στόμα κατὰ στόμα λαλήσω αὐτῷ, ἐν εἴδει καὶ οὐ δι’ αἰνιγμάτων, καὶ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου εἶδεν (Num 12:8). As such, Moses in Num 12:1–8, and by extension in Hebrews 3:5–6, appears as an icon of a priestly parrhēsia, of one who beholds the glory of God in the tent/tabernacle.⁶⁴ By depicting Moses as a priestly visionary, the homilist of Hebrews can then make the mes-

 Attridge, Hebrews, 104.  Attridge, Hebrews, 104.  For further substantiation of the claim that Moses is presented in a priestly guise here, see Attridge, Hebrews, 105.

280

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

sianic claim to an even greater parrhēsia on the basis of Christ’s surpassing priesthood (Heb 3:6), by virtue of which boldness the community of the faithful is transformed from priestly people into Christ’s very “house.” Enough has been said, then, to connect Moses, parrhēsia, and priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. To fully grasp the ways that this matrix of traditional exegetical motifs may have influenced Paul’s portrayal of Christian parrhēsia in 2 Cor 3:16–18, we will return to Philo and look more deeply into the Mosaic-tent traditions, particularly in Exodus 33, beyond the passages which speak of Moses’ parrhēsia. This will allow us to identify additional elements of this common fund of Mosaic-tabernacle traditions, which will shed further light on Paul’s use and transformation of them.

6.4.3 Entering the Tent in Philo and 2 Corinthians The primary place to which I would like to turn within the Philonic corpus in order to expand the picture of the Hellenistic Jewish Moses-tabernacle tradition is to a set of secondary-level interpretations of Exod 33:7–11.⁶⁵ Alongside LXX Num 12:7, these verses provide one of the most common proofs of Moses’ unique role as visionary of the divine glory in the tent of meeting. As was true in the case of Hebrews, so here, Philo connects Moses’ role with that of the priesthood, albeit in a sophisticated and unexpected way. Philo, of course, does not mince words when it comes to identifying Moses as a priest. Although he is never explicitly called priest in the Septuagint, “high priest” is one of the four titles which Philo explicitly ascribed to Moses in De vita Mosis.⁶⁶ This fact alone suggests a common background with the traditions of Moses’ priestly parrhēsia in Hebrews. In the Exposition of the Law, however, Philo does not exegetically probe the meaning of Moses’ priesthood as deeply as he does elsewhere. He sets out a fuller vision of Moses’ high-priestly role in the Allegorical Commentary, particularly through his interpretation of Exod 33:7–11 as a secondary lemma.

 Unfortunately, Philo does not interpret Exod 34:27–35 at any length in the Allegorical Commentary. While he does retell Moses’ second descent in Mos. 2.68–70, these brief chapters of rewritten Bible hardly supply the kinds of traditional elaboration which would be helpful for a tradition-critical comparison of this scale.  I say four, counting king and philosopher as two sides of the same coin in Philo’s political thought. See particularly Philo’s secondary preface in Mos. 2.2–3, where all four are enumerated. They are: king/philosopher, lawgiver, high priest, and prophet.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

281

6.4.3.1 Philo, Gig. 53–54 The first relevant passage—and Philo’s most detailed interpretation of Exod 33:7– 11 as a secondary lemma—comes from one of the so-called “middle” treatises in the Allegorical Commentary, De gigantibus, particularly Gig. 53–54. This pericope, as was briefly noted in chapter three, forms a conclusion to a long string of secondary lemmata in the latter part of Gig. 19–57. Of course, that whole discussion of the antithesis of human flesh and divine spirit and the conditions for the spirit’s persistence with different groups of human beings is germane to Paul’s discussion on the role of the Holy Spirit in Christian transformation (cf. 2 Cor 3:17). Gig. 53–54, however, particularly merits attention as Philo uses this quintessential Mosaic exemplum to expand a discussion of Moses and spiritual vision in the tent of meeting. Gig. 53–54 has often been referenced by earlier commentators like Windisch in discussions of 2 Cor 3:12–18, but has not to my knowledge been fully studied from the exegetical and theological angle. Due to its relevance, I print the text in full: §53 ὥστε οὖν μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς, τουτέστι τοῖς πολλὰ τοῦ βίου τέλη προτεθειμένοις, οὐ καταμένει τὸ θεῖον πνεύμα, κἂν πρὸς ὀλίγον χρόνον ἀναστραφῇ, μόνῳ δὲ ἀνθρώπων εἴδει ἑνὶ παραγίνεται, ὃ πάντα ἀπαμφιασάμενον τὰ ἐν γενέσει καὶ τὸ ἐσωτάτω καταπέτασμα καὶ προκάλυμμα τῆς δόξης ἀνειμένῃ καὶ γυμνῇ τῇ διανοίᾳ πρὸς θεὸν ἀφίξεται. §54 οὕτως καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς καὶ τοῦ σωματικοῦ παντὸς στρατοπέδου πήξας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σκηνήν, τουτέστι τὴν γνώμην ἱδρυσάμενος ἀκλινῆ, προσκυνεῖν τὸν θεὸν ἄρχεται καὶ εἰς τὸν γνόφον, τὸν ἀειδῆ χῶρον, εἰσελθὼν αὐτοῦ καταμένει τελούμενος τὰς ἱερωτάτας τελετάς. γίνεται δὲ οὐ μόνον μύστης, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱεροφάντης ὀργίων καὶ διδάσκαλος θείων, ἃ τοῖς ὦτα κεκαθαρμένοις ὑφηγήσεται. §53 So it is that the divine spirit does not remain among the many, that is, among those who set before themselves the many goods (lit. ends) of life, even if it dwells with them for a short span. Rather, the divine spirit remains present with one form of human being only, the one which, having unclothed itself of all the trappings of creation and the innermost curtain and veil of opinion, will come to God with unclad and naked intellect. §54 So too Moses, after he pitched his tent, outside the camp and the entire host of corporeal affairs—that is to say, after he had fixed his judgment in a steady fashion—begins to worship God; and having entered into the darkness, that invisible country, he remains there to be initiated into the most sacred rites. And he becomes not merely an initiate, but “hierophant” of the rites and teacher of divine things, which he will impart to people with clean ears.

Comparisons of Gig. 53–54 and 2 Cor 3:7–18 have naturally gravitated toward the various veils in Gig. 53. I would like to begin, however, with Gig. 54, as both Gig. 54 and 2 Cor 3:13 present Mosaic (dis)similes (οὕτως καὶ Μωϋσῆς [Gig. 54], οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς [2 Cor 3:13]), which either initiate or continue com-

282

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

mentaries on passages from Exodus. In Gig. 54, Philo’s lemma is not Exod 34:33 but Exod 33:7, which recounts Moses’ setting up the tent of meeting outside the Israelite camp. This difference in biblical scenario mitigates at least in part the apparent friction between Philo’s explicit endorsement of Mosaic exemplarity and Paul’s statement of Mosaic non-exemplarity in 2 Cor 3:13. However, Paul’s “not like Moses” does sound a kind of warning shot across the bow that while aware of exemplarist traditions, he will also be qualifying them in his exegesis. Philo’s introduction of this secondary lemma from Exodus, by way of allusion rather than direct citation, involves an allegoresis of the verse, in which the Israelite camp comes to represent the cares of the body and his “pitching his own tent” represents the “fixing of his judgment (γνώμη)” in a place where it cannot be erroneously “swayed” by any bodily concern—presumably, that is, in a place something like the realm of pure reason mentioned in Gig. 53. So far, it appears that Philo is simply paraphrasing a single verse. But Philo continues by noting that once Moses has pitched his tent, “he begins to worship God, and having entered into the darkness, that invisible country, he remains there to be initiated into the most sacred rites.”⁶⁷ This phrase is intriguing in a number of ways. The fact that Moses abides (καταμένει) within the tent to be perfected clearly echoes the language of Philo’s primary lemma, Gen 6:3 (cf. Gig. 53), but then applies this language to Moses: the divine spirit does not abide with humans, unless they, like Moses, abide (καταμένει) within the tent. As such, Philo is clearly reading Exod 33:7 in part through the lens of Gen 6:3. But what of the other curious details in this passage, that Moses begins to worship God (προσκυνεῖν τὸν θεόν) and that he “entered into the darkness”? Do these ideas bear any direct relation to the secondary lemma, Exod 33:7? Is Moses’ entry into the tent (as well as his pitching the tent outside the camp) a stock part of Philo’s exegesis of Exod 33:7? To get a little purchase on these questions, it is worth briefly listing the other places where Philo interprets Exod 33:7 in the Allegorical Commentary. As mentioned above, Philo employs this same verse as a secondary or tertiary lemma in four other settings in the Allegorical Commentary: Leg. 2.54–55; Leg. 3.46–48; Det. 160; and Ebr. 100. As Ebr. 100 is actually a tertiary lemma, introduced only briefly through a verbal link (παρεμβολή) to support Philo’s reading of Exod 32:17b (“The sound of war is in the camp”), I will confine my comparisons with Gig. 54 to the first three parallels. On a cursory glance, what is immediately striking about Philo’s exposition of

 Philo, Gig. 54: προσκυνεῖν τὸν θεὸν ἄρχεται καὶ εἰς τὸν γνόφον, τὸν ἀειδῆ χῶρον, εἰσελθὼν αὐτοῦ καταμένει τελούμενος τὰς ἱερωτάτας τελετάς.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

283

all four of these parallel lemmata is that the primary emphasis of each is on Moses’ separation from the camp, not on his subsequent entrance into the tent. The one exception to this may be Leg. 2.54–55. I say “may,” because there is no mention of Moses’ subsequent entrance into the tent in the pericope. This secondary lemma, however, as an amplification of the “nakedness” of Adam and Eve in Gen 2:25, stands at the beginning of a string of secondary lemmata (Exod 33:7, Lev 16:2; Lev 10:1; Gen 12:1; Gen 26:2; Gen 27:11) all thematically related through the theme of ethical “nakedness,” which symbolizes the ideal state of the soul. What is intriguing about this sequence is that after adducing Exod 33:7 in Leg. 2.54–55, Philo turns immediately to the high priest’s entrance (Leviticus 16) in Leg. 2.56. Leg. 2.54–56 thus presents, at the allegorical level of the soul, a pattern of actions similar to those found at the literal level in Gig. 54 (removal from the camp, entrance into the tent/tabernacle). Further cementing this connection between Leg. 2.54–56 and Gig. 54 is the striking fact that in De gigantibus, Philo also links Exod 33:7 to Leviticus 16, albeit in the reverse order. Thus, whereas Lev 16:2 (Leg. 2.56) follows Exod 33:7 (Leg. 2.54) in the Legum allegoriae, Lev 16:2 (Gig. 52) precedes Exod 33:7 (Gig. 54) in De gigantibus. Nonetheless, in both allegorical treatises, Moses’ removal from the camp and the (high) priest’s entrance into the tabernacle are considered to be integrally related events. Because of its obvious interest, I will treat Leg. 2.54–56 separately in the following section. The parallel between these expositions exists, as I mentioned, at the allegorical rather than the literal level. Thus, the point still stands that of the four occurrences of Exod 33:7 as a secondary lemma in the Allegorical Commentary, only in Gig. 54 does Philo explicitly indicate that Moses enters into the tent after he withdraws from the camp. Det. 160 drives this point home. There, we hear that Moses “dwells far off from the corporeal host, expecting (ἐλπίσας) that he will (ἔσεσθαι) be a perfect suppliant and worshiper of God.” What remains a potential hope in Det. 160 becomes, in the realized eschatology of Gig. 54, Moses’ actual initiation and perfection. The question thus remains: why does Moses enter the tent in Gig. 54? Thematically, this is undoubtedly linked with the motif of permanence in the primary lemma (Gen 6:3); it is not enough for Moses merely to flee the body as an exemplar of contemplative withdrawal. Rather, Moses must move into the place where the Spirit’s persistent presence becomes possible. This movement is depicted as a “beginning to pray” and an “entry into the darkness” (εἰς τὸν γνόφον, τὸν ἀειδῆ χῶρον, εἰσελθών). The latter phrase, however, echoes not Exodus 33 but Exod 20:21 (εἱστήκει δὲ ὁ λαὸς μακρόθεν, Μωϋσῆς δὲ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν γνόφον, οὗ ἦν θεός). Just how to account for this detail remains a puzzle. At the most basic level, Philo has concatenated and meshed, in a non-sequential fashion, two passages

284

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

about Moses and created a new spiritual teleology through them. Moses withdraws from the camp (Exod 33:7) and then enters a second time into the darkness of Sinai (Exod 20:21). That structural sequence would, in fact, mirror the Mosaic narratives of Exodus 33 and 34 more broadly (tent, Sinai). However, the context of Leg. 2:54–55 also suggests that by the entry into darkness, Philo means his reader to think of the tent of meeting (tent, Sinai, tent). Rather than thinking of the entire sequence of Exod 33–34, however, it seems more likely that Philo is following loosely the sequence of a shorter pericope, Exod 33:7–11. In at least one on the parallel passages, Leg. 3.46–48, we have concrete evidence that Philo went on to interpret not just Exod 33:7a but 33:7b, “and everyone who was seeking the Lord went out to the tent outside the camp.” In Gig. 54, Philo paraphrases and interprets a longer pericope, which includes not only Moses’ withdrawal, but also his entry into the tent (Exod 33:8–9a), the descent of a cloud/darkness (Exod 33:9b), his prayer and ultimate perfection, mediated through his communion with God “face to face” (Exod 33:11; cf. Exod 34:6). While this final point about the means of Moses’ perfection is nowhere specified, one hears direct textual echoes of Moses’ entry into the tent (Exod 33:8 εἰσπορεύετο, εἰσελθεῖν; Exod 33:9 εἰσῆλθεν), the presence of divine darkness as the place of revelation (Exod 33:9b: κατέβαινεν ὁ στῦλος τῆς νεφέλης; cf. Exod 19:9), and the presence of the verb προσκυνεῖν (Exod 33:10; cf. Exod 34:8) in Gig. 54. Philo has thus drawn these two Mosaic narratives together and allowed the language of Sinai to “stand in” for the episode in the tent of meeting. This serves as a sign of his exegetical acumen and as an important witness to the creative versatility of Hellenistic Jewish exegesis. We see here also the beginnings of a kind of Moses mysticism, developed more fully by Gregory of Nyssa’s De vita Moysis, where the Sinai event becomes explicitly repeatable, not literally on the Mountain (Exod 33:12–23) in this Philonic case, but ritually in the tent (Exodus 33:1–11). Gig. 53–54 thus sheds light on 2 Cor 3:7–18 as both an exegetical and theological parallel. Exegetically, Gig. 53–54 reveals that secondary-level exegesis may both follow the sequence of a biblical text, while also playing freely with various related parts of a tradition, recombining elements from the scripture through narrative echo to draw out certain spiritual truths. Some clear theological parallels between the Moses traditions in Gig. 53–54 and 2 Cor 3:12–18 should now also be readily apparent. The soul like Moses (Gig. 54; 2 Cor 3:16–18), having unveiled itself (Gig. 53; 2 Cor 3:16), enters into the tent of meeting (Gig. 54; 2 Cor 3:16) and is transformed/perfected (Gig. 54; 2 Cor 3:18) through the divine spirit (Gig. 53; 2 Cor 3:17–18). In this first example, then, we have not yet seen what Paul’s warning shot of “not like Moses” might mean for his understanding of Moses as a contemplative figure. One should not thereby be lulled into thinking

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

285

that his view is identical with Philo’s. Nonetheless, the initially similarities between these two exegeses suggest a common background in the Jewish commentary tradition.

6.4.3.2 Philo, Leg. 2.53–55 I turn now to a second major allegorical treatment of Exod 33:7 in Philo: Leg. 2.53–55. Here, Philo uses Exod 33:7 as a secondary lemma to interpret the allegorical meaning of Adam and Eve’s nakedness in Gen 2:25. Moses is never explicitly said to enter into the tent. Two subsequent secondary lemmata, however, are enchained to Philo’s exegesis of Exod 33:7: Lev 16:2–14 in Leg. 2.56 and Lev 10:1–5 in Leg. 2.57–58. Formally speaking, each of these lemmata is thematically (not lexically—in neither case are the figures explicitly called γύμνος) linked to the primary lemma, Gen 2:25, through the Platonic idea of psychic nakedness. Each of these secondary lemmata, however, also involves the priestly entrance into the tabernacle. A careful investigation of Philo’s treatment of these two subsequent secondary lemmata will reveal that, far from being merely subordinate to the primary lemma (Gen 2:25), these two pericopae also amplify the image of Moses in Exod 33:7, in part continuing the Mosaic narrative and suggesting that Philo here too envisions and develops Moses as a priestly figure. The first of these two lemmata is Lev 16:2–14,⁶⁸ interpreted by Philo in Leg. 2.56 immediately after his allegorical interpretation of Moses’ pitching the tent of meeting. This passage describes the appropriate attire of the high priest prior to entering the holy of holies. According to Lev 16:7, this is to take place in the “tent of meeting,” an explicit lexical connection binding Exod 33:7 and Lev 16:2–14 (both secondary lemmata) closely together. The scriptural regulations themselves, of course, are directed to Aaron. However, Philo’s omission of Aaron’s name and designation of the entering figure simply as the “high priest” suggests that he intends us to think of Moses’ priestly approach. This passage provides a striking initial parallel to Paul’s similar removal of the name of Moses in 2 Cor 3:16 to “open” a particular narrative for allegorical interpretation. The language of entrance, εἰσελεύσεται, occurs twice in Leg. 2.56 and makes up, at the level of the allegorical narrative, for Philo’s failure to treat the multiple verbs of Moses’ entry present in Exod 33:8–9.⁶⁹

 It is difficult to know where Philo’s implicit lemma ends, but it must go at least as far as Lev 16:14, since it is only there that one finds mention of both αἷμα and θυμίαμα, the two oblations used in the high priest’s noetic worship in Leg. 2.56.  εἰσεπορεύετο, εἰσελθεῖν, Exod 33:8; εἰσῆλθεν, Exod 33:9.

286

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

The second of Philo’s supplementary lemmata, Lev 10:1–5, interpreted by Philo in Leg. 2.57–58, clearly shifts focus away from Moses/Aaron/the high priest to the Levitical priesthood more generally. Nadab and Abihu, who in the plain sense of scripture are clearly not priests to be imitated, are forged into Philonic exemplars of priests who draw near (ἐγγίσαντες, Leg. 2.57) in the proper fashion, naked of all worldly pursuits (cf. Gig. 53). Rather than being punished by a fiery death, Nadab and Abihu are transformed by Philo into spiritual exemplars who as pure souls leave their mortal χιτῶνες (Lev 10:5) behind and are “taken up” in the fashion of Enoch and Elijah to become “partakers of the immortal life.” As was true in the case of Lev 16:2–14, so also Lev 10:1–5 has far more lexical and contextual continuity with the preceding secondary lemmata than with the primary lemma, Gen 2:25. Lev 16:1 clearly recalls the issue of πῦρ ἀλλότριον (Lev 10:1, 16:1), providing a natural exegetical connection between these two lemmata. Philo, moreover, draws out the theme of χιτῶνες in each priestly text (Lev 10:5, Lev 16:4), suggesting that he means to reveal further priestly models of the soul’s approach to God, which Moses as priest typifies. Philo’s reference to the removal of priestly garments in his interpretation of Leviticus 10 and 16 suggests a further connection between these two secondarylevel exegeses of priestly exemplars and Moses’ behavior in the tabernacle (Exodus 33). In all three contexts, the soul’s nakedness before God is not the result of its natural state (Gen 2:25) but is something which results for the priest’s removal of some outer garment, be it a veil (Exod 34:34; 33:11) or a set of priestly garments (Lev 16:4; 10:5). This common feature binding Philo’s three secondary lemmata in Leg. 2.54–57 also suggests a second connection between the exegetical complex of priestly approach in Hellenistic Jewish tradition and the Mosaic exemplarity in 2 Cor 3:16, namely, the allegoresis of the removal of inhibiting garments in preparation for the visionary approach of divine glory. Just as the high priests must remove garments before entering the tabernacle, so Moses, in order to have faceto-face discourse with God, must remove his veil (Exod 33:11, 34:34; cf. 33:23). The structural or ritual similarity between these two sets of passages is strengthened by Philo’s description, in his immediate discussion of Gen 2:25, of the soul’s removal of ethical impediments as a removal of καλύμματα (Leg. 2.53)—which are parallel to the subsequent priestly χιτῶνες: γυμνός ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς ὁ μήτε κακίᾳ μήτε ἀρετῇ ἀμπεχόμενος, ἀλλ’ ἑκατέρου γεγυμνωμένος ὄντως, οἷον ἡ τοῦ νηπίου παιδὸς ψυχὴ ἀμέτοχος οὖσα ἑκατέρου, ἀγαθοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ, ἀπημφίασται τὰ καλύμματα καὶ γεγύμνωται. That mind is naked which is not clothed in either vice or virtue, but has really stripped off both, just as the soul of an infant child, being without a share in either good or evil, has put off its coverings and become naked. (Leg. 2.53)

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

287

Similarly, Paul exhorts the Christian convert or visionary to remove his Mosaic κάλυμμα (2 Cor 3:16) before transformative vision of Christ, the glory and image, can occur. It is exceptionally interesting that in Leg. 2.53, Philo combines elements of Mosaic/priestly and Adamic exemplarity in his depiction of the νοῦς/ψυχή. While the casting off of the καλύμματα has priestly overtones, looking forward to the putting aside of various priestly garments in Leg. 2.55–57, the soul’s taking off both ἀγαθοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ in Leg. 2.53, while not using the language of LXX Gen 2:17 (καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν; cf. LXX Deut 30:15), clearly draws on the notion of a pre-lapsarian Adamic mind, to which state the high-priestly mind aspires to return in doffing its vestments. Indeed, the connection between the removal of priestly καλύμματα/χιτῶνες and Adamic nakedness in Leg. 2.53–57 finds further exegetical support in the fact that Adam and Eve themselves receive χιτῶνες in their post-lapsarian state (LXX Gen 3:21). Although Philo does not explicitly draw this connection, surely it is near to the surface of the text’s exegetical logic. By putting off its outer garments, als Endzeit Urzeit wird, the Mosaic/priestly soul realizes anew its pre-lapsarian, Adamic state.⁷⁰ This exegetical combination of Mosaic-priestly and Adamic exemplarity in Philo provides a third point of connection between Leg. 2.53–57 and 2 Cor 3:16–18. In 2 Cor 3:16–18, the purpose of imitating Moses and removing the veil (2 Cor 3:16) is to retrieve one’s Adamic form, namely, to become conformed again according to God’s εἰκών (2 Cor 3:18). For Paul, however, that pre-lapsarian εἰκών of Gen 1:27 has already been retrieved by the last/second Adam (1 Cor 15:45, 47), Jesus Christ. Thus, Moses’ unveiled approach of divine δόξα and Adam’s beholding his lost εἰκών are in 2 Cor 3:16–18 combined into a spiritual model for Christian transformation through parrhesiastic vision of Christ, the glory and image of God.

6.4.4 Seeing in a Glass, Gloriously: Philo and 2 Corinthians This observation points to one final connection between the transformative vision of 2 Cor 3:16–18 and the Mosaic-priestly tradition, namely, the conception of vision through a mirror (κατοπτρίζεσθαι). In examining this semantic-image

 The structural and lexical similarities between Philo and Paul in 2 Cor 3:7–18 are undoubtedly related to the Platonizing use of the terms σκῆνος and γυμνός in the anthropological discussion of 2 Cor 5:1–10. There as here, we note both similarity and difference. Whereas for Philo, the ideal psychic state is one of nakedness Gig. 53, for Paul, while disrobing and nakedness are desirable, the soul’s ultimate eschatological end is to be clothed anew (2 Cor 5:3–4).

288

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

group, we leave behind Philo’s interpretation of Exod 33:7–11 and turn to the Alexandrian’s exegesis of the subsequent pericope, Exod 33:12–23.⁷¹ Mirrors, in symbolic, metaphorical language, can obfuscate vision as well as clarify it (see 1 Cor 13:12); however, the compound κατοπτρίζεσθαι and its cognates, in both Paul and Philo—at least a large number of times in the latter— often have the sense of mediating a vision accurately over and against less reliable reflections.⁷² Philo and Paul each use the verb κατοπτρίζεσθαι once a piece in their respective corpora—the dual epigraphs of this chapter—and their uses warrant comment here in light some recent scholarship on Mosaic contemplation in Paul and Philo. Paul’s use of κατοπτρίζεσθαι occurs in 2 Cor 3:18, referring to the transformative vision of Christians who, like Moses, have removed the veil from their faces to contemplate God’s glory. Philo’s sole use of the verb occurs on the lips of Moses himself, in a rewriting of Moses’ request to see God in Exod 33:13 (Leg. 3.101): Οὗτός ἐστι Μωϋσῆς ὁ λέγων “ἐμφάνισον μοι σαυτόν, γνωστῶς ἴδω σε” (Exod 33:13)· μὴ γὰρ ἐμφανισθείης μοι δι’ οὐρανοῦ ἢ γῆς ἢ ἀέρος ἢ τινος ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν γενέσει, μηδὲ κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ· This [purer mind] is Moses, who is saying “Make yourself clear to me, let me see you and know you” (Exod 33:13); do not be revealed to me through heaven or earth or water or air or through any of other things in your creation, neither let me see your form reflected in anything other than you yourself, O God! (Leg. 3.101)

We have already seen the relevance of Philo’s interpretation of Exod 33:7–11 in Leg. 2.53–57 for 2 Cor 3:16–18. Leg. 3.101, with its close lexical and contextual affinity to 2 Cor 3:16–18, provides thus another link connecting Mosaic exemplarity in Philo and Paul. Here, critically, Philo is interpreting Moses’ request allegorically, as the request of the purified mind (Leg. 3.100) to see God’s form directly (κατοπτρισαίμην … τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν), not mediated through any of the elements of creation. For Paul in 2 Cor 3:18, this clear mirror vision happens through a Mosaic gazing on God’s glory and image. This raises, however, a question about the parallel text in Philo: would Philo’s Moses in Leg. 3.101 be similarly content with a mirror-

 For a major study of the mirror image group, see Frances Back, Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus: Eine religions-geschichtliche-exegetische Untersuchung zu 2 Kor 2,14–4,6 (WUNT 2.153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).  So Furnish, II Corinthians, 239, who quotes Philo, Spec. 1.219 as evidence for the perspicacious nature of mirrors.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

289

vision of God’s eternal image, or by the phrase ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ is he is asking for something more? Philo’s meaning here, unfortunately, is ambiguous and has given rise to much debate. However, I think the best reading of the text is that Philo’s Moses in fact is asking for (and capable of receiving) a kind of vision that does not entail seeing God through either the material world or even God’s image in the Logos, but which amounts to a radical request to see God’s form with no mediator whatsoever.⁷³ An initial problem for this thesis is posed by the very verb under consideration, κατοπτρίζεσθαι. Several recent studies of this verb have concluded that it most naturally implies indirect vision.⁷⁴ One might thereby object that the verb κατοπτρισαίμην itself implies that Philo has in mind an indirect vision of God’s form, mediated through one of his powers, similar or identical to that of 2 Cor 3:18. This might be granted, were it not for the fact that Philo uses the verb in the negative. The phrase μηδὲ κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ admits of semantic ambiguity, as Philo clearly choses the verb to represent the kind of indirect vision he wishes to avoid, such as seeing through the various lenses of creation, as he mentioned in the previous sentence and as he describes the process of natural philosophers in Leg. 3.97–99. However, may we therefore conclude that the positive vision to which Moses aspires is also a kind of indirect mirror vision? While the comparative ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ may admit of such a reading, the ellipsis in the syntax puts the stress on the comparison of the two prepositional phrases, not on the verb. Moreover, if ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ with its emphatic second person address indicates a direct, personal, and unmediated vision of God, the rhetorical force of the comparative could be to transcend both the prepositional phrase and the verb of the former part of the sentence. Bultmann concludes similarly: Certainly, the meaning here is not ‘nothing created shall reflect you toward me, O God, but you yourself shall be the mirror in which I see you,’ so that God would be regarded as the mirror of himself (thus Lietzmann, 113). Rather, for the ἤ-clause an ἰδοίμην is to be inferred from the κατοπτρισαίμην.⁷⁵

 Admittedly, Philo’s view on the content of the soul’s vision is a complicated subject. Philo states just the opposite view to the one I am arguing here in Mut. 7–17, in which the Logos is the sole mediator of human vision of God. Philo takes there as his text Exod 33:13–23. For a fuller treatment of the argument presented here, see Cover, “The Sun and the Chariot.”  Rabens, “Transformation through Contemplation,” 2; Litwa, “Transformation through a Mirror,” 292.  Bultmann, Second Letter, 94.

290

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

This reading seems to me the best way to understand Philo’s Greek. Two linguistic observations help buttress this conclusion. In the first place, Philo here uses the arthrous form of God (ὁ θεός), which usually refers to God himself and not the anarthrous form (θεός), which more commonly refers to the Word of God (cf. John 1:1).⁷⁶ Similarly, the phrase τινος ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν γενέσει could be understood as including the Logos, as Philo speaks at times of the Logos having “come into existence.”⁷⁷ However, as this solution requires filling in certain syntactic lacunae, certainty on the meaning cannot be determined from the pericope alone. Further support must thus be sought from the broader context of the passage. The key to unlocking Philo’s meaning, I believe, comes in the previous sentence, which needs to be examined closely: ἔστι δέ τις τελεώτερος καὶ μᾶλλον κεκαθαρμένος νοῦς τὰ μεγάλα μυστήρια μυηθείς, ὅστις οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν γεγονότων τὸ αἴτιον γνωρίζει, ὡς ἂν ἀπὸ σκιᾶς τὸ μένον, ἀλλ’ ὑπερκύψας τὸ γενητὸν ἔμφασιν ἐναργῆ τοῦ ἀγενήτου λαμβάνει, ὡς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ αὐτὸν καταλαμβάνειν καὶ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ, ὅπερ ἦν τόν τε λόγον καὶ τόνδε τὸν κόσμον. There is a more perfect and more purified mind that has been initiated into the great mysteries, which does not know the Cause from what has come to be, as one may learn what is actually there from its shadow. Rather, having transcended those things which are generated, it receives a clear impression of the ungenerated One, so that it comprehends Him from Himself and [it comprehends] His shadow—which meant [to comprehend] both the Logos and this world. (Leg. 3.100)

This passage provides a clear picture of the kind of visionary Moses exemplifies. As was stated above, Philo’s Moses seeks a vision of God which does not proceed from the created order (οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν γεγονότων), or from mere shadow (ἀπὸ σκιᾶς), but from the cause Himself. Clearly this precludes reasoning one’s way to God from the created order. However, where might God’s immaterial εἰκών—which is identified with God’s Logos in Leg. 3.96—fit within this schema? Does he belong to the shadow world of the generated, or might he stand in for  See Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001 [1987]), 120: “Ho theos [for Philo] means God in his own mysterious being, theos God as purposive and active in respect of creation.”  For the implication that the Logos belongs to the created order, despite also being “above” creation, see Leg. 3.175: καὶ ὁ λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπεράνω παντός ἐστι τοῦ κόσμου καὶ πρεσβύτατος καὶ γενικώτατος τῶν ὅσα γέγονε. Elsewhere in the Allegorical Commentary, however, Philo presents a slightly more nuanced view, claiming that the Logos is a kind of distinguishing borderland (μεθόριος) between the creature (τὸ γενόμενον) and Creator (ὁ πεποιηκώς), who is neither uncreated as God nor created as human beings (οὔτε ἀγένητος ὡς ὁ θεὸς, οὔτε γενητὸς ὡς ὑμεῖς) (Her. 205). Of course, the critical nuance here is “as you”, which leaves open the possibility of speaking of the Logos as γενητός in some other but related sense.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

291

God himself as the proper object of vision? The key to answering this question, in this context, hangs upon the interpretation of the following line from Leg. 3.100: (A) ὡς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (i) αὐτὸν καταλαμβάνειν καὶ (ii) τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ, (B) ὅπερ ἦν τόν τε λόγον καὶ τόνδε τὸν κόσμον .

The natural result clause in (A) clearly depicts the fully initiated Mosaic visionary as comprehending two things, both (i) the cause himself and (ii) his shadow. The relative clause (B) then clarifies what Philo means by this statement. The neuter relative pronoun in (B) indicates that an entire infinitival phrase is explicated, rather than simply one or both of the objects of the mind’s vision in (A), and hence some infinitive must be supplied. However, (B) can still be read in two ways. On the one hand, (B) can be read in parallel with the entirety of (A), such that (i) the Cause himself is identified with the Logos and (ii) his shadow is identified with “this world.”⁷⁸ On the other hand, the entirety (B) can be taken to explicate (ii) his shadow. To my mind, this second option is the more straightforward reading of Philo’s Greek. In Leg. 3.100, Philo seems to say that the unmediated vision of God produces residual knowledge of God’s shadow, “which is to say, of his Logos and this world”—a striking inversion of Philo’s typical “light by light” epistemology.⁷⁹ Admittedly, this is not Philo’s usual position on this question  So Litwa, “Transformation through a Mirror,” 292–93.  This reading will sound counterintuitive to seasoned readers of Philo, given the mediatory role usually played by the Logos in Philo’s epistemology. I have argued this position at length in Cover, “The Sun and the Chariot.” The standard understanding of Philo’s epistemological view is set out by David Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985). Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 44, calls this position “God by God/Light by Light” (Praem. 46), signifying that while one might know that God exists by way of a direct revelation, one cannot know/see “who” God is in his essence. While a majority of Philonic passages support this position, in my view, Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 44, note 7, subsumes several cases under the heading “by light, light” without sufficient consideration. Most importantly for the current argument, Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 21, argues that “man’s highest union with God, according to Philo, is limited to the Deity’s manifestation as Logos.” While such a view finds support in texts like Philo, Praem. 36–46, Winston’s reading stumbles over texts such as Leg. 3.101 and Abr. 119–23. So, Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism (5 vols; The Presence of God: A History of Western Mysticism; New York: Crossroad, 1991–2013), 1:40, rightly argues to the contrary that “some [Philonic] texts, at least, seem to hold out the possibility for vision of the Existent in himself, not, of course, a comprehension of understanding of his nature, but some form of contact with that which is.” It is to this latter category that I ascribe Leg. 3.101. Similarly, Williams, Arius, 120: “Whether Philo had a doctrine of ‘mystical union’ in any strict sense remains debatable; but (despite the logical difficul-

292

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

in the majority of his writings. Elsewhere, Philo uses precisely this secondary lemma (Exod 33:12–23) to preclude knowledge of God’s essence, using God’s rejection of Moses’ request in Exod 33:23 as proof (Post. 167–69; Mut. 7–10) that seeing through the Logos is necessary. What enables Philo to read Exod 33:13 as he does in Leg. 3.100–101 is his circumscription of his secondary lemma to Exod 33:12–13. By leaving Moses’ question scripturally unanswered in Leg. 3.100–101, Philo opens the possibility that some direct vision or knowledge of God’s “form” is receivable by the Mosaic soul. This reading of Leg. 3.100 is strongly supported by the fact that just a few chapters earlier in the same treatise, Philo calls the Logos not only God’s image, but also God’s shadow: σκιὰ θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρήσαμενος ἐκοσμοποίει (Leg. 3.96). From this, one can conclude that Philo uses the term “shadow” in two distinct but related ways: to refer to both God’s material world and the “instrument” or power by which he made it.⁸⁰ To see God through either of these reflections, however—through his creation or through his Logos—does not appear to satisfy the fully-initiated Mosaic mind in Leg. 3.100. In addition, this reading of Leg. 3.100–101 finds “external” support in Philo’s third commentary series, the Exposition of the Law, in an important passage in De Abrahamo, which includes an allegorical interpretation of Abraham’s three visitors in Gen 18:1–8. In Abr. 119–123, Philo claims that the visionary soul often beholds God not as one, but as three—an interesting claim that merits further investigation: ἐπειδὰν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ καθάπερ ἐν μεσημβρίᾳ θεῷ περιλαμφθῇ καὶ ὅλη δι’ ὅλων νοητοῦ φωτὸς ἀναπλησθεῖσα ταῖς ἐν κύκλῳ κεχυμέναις αὐγαῖς ἄσκιος γένηται, τριττὴν φαντασίαν ἑνὸς ὑποκειμένου καταλαμβάνει, τοῦ μὲν ὡς ὄντος, τῶν δ’ ἄλλων δυοῖν ὡς ἂν ἀπαυγαζομένων ἀπὸ τούτου σκιῶν. Whenever the soul should be engulfed in light by God, as in the noonday sun, and when it has become entirely shadowless because of the rays which have been poured out all around it, filled up entirely by noetic light, [then] it receives a threefold impression of the one subsistence, since the one really is, while the other two are, as it were, shadows flashing forth from the one. (Abr. 119)

ties involved in such a position) he does seem to have believed that there could be a relation to God other than in his world-related aspect as Logos.” Philo’s thought, in this respect as in many others, resists systematization and reflects, rather, an “architectonic” (to quote Sandmel) exegetical compendium rather than a uniform systematic theology.  For a similar reading of this passage, see Scott Mackie, “Seeing God,” SPhA 21 (2009): 25–47, esp. 34–6.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

293

This passage is relevant for the current discussion as it relates to the vision of God and his two-fold shadow (see Leg. 3.100). In this case, however, both shadows are noetic, and reflect God’s creative and kingly powers, respectively (Abr. 121). Moreover, while the creative power can be called “god,” only the central “subsistence” merits that title properly (κυρίῳ ὀνόματι, Ibid.) as an indication of his unique essence. It would seem, then, that in the case of Abraham, Philo does retain a place for the ethically efficacious vision of God, not only in himself, but also in his luminous shadows. This does not mean, however, that the Moses of Leg. 3.100–101 would be happy with Abraham’s vision. To the contrary, Philo himself tells us plainly that Abraham’s vision of God-as-three represents a lesser class of theophany. God reveals himself sometimes as one, sometimes as three, depending on the capacity and ethical purity of the sage: ἑνὸς μὲν ὅταν ἄκρως τύχῃ καθαρθεῖσα καὶ μὴ μόνον τὰ πλήθη τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν γείτονα μονάδος δυάδα ὑπερβᾶσα πρὸς τὴν ἀμιγῆ καὶ ἀσύμπλοκον καὶ καθ’ αὑτὴν οὐδενὸς ἐπιδεᾶ τὸ παράπαν ἰδέαν ἐπείγηται, τριῶν δὲ ὅταν μήπω τὰς μεγάλας τελεσθεῖσα τελετὰς ἔτι ἐν ταῖς βραχυτέραις ὀργιάζηται καὶ μὴ δύνηται τὸ ὂν ἄνευ ἑτέρου τινὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ μόνον καταλαβεῖν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν δρωμένων, ἢ κτίζον ἢ ἄρχον. [He presents the vision of the] one, when the mind (sc. διανοία) happens to be highly purified (ἄκρως … καθαρθεῖσα) and, having surpassed not only the multiplicity of numbers but also the dyad neighboring the monad, hastens on to the form (ἰδέα) which is entirely unmixed and incomposite and lacking nothing in itself; [while He presents the vision of the] three when the mind has not yet been initiated into the great mysteries (μεγάλας τελεσθεῖσα τελετὰς) but still a practitioner of the minor rites and is not able to comprehend the Existent apart from some other by himself alone, but through His acting agents (δρώμενα), either the creating or the ruling. (Abr. 122)

Three verbal echoes of Leg. 3.100–101 in Abr. 122 suggest that the vision requested by Moses in the former passage is not the vision of the three, but the vision of the one. First, in both texts, the mind or thought (νοῦς/διανοία) that sees God as one is presented as thoroughly cleansed (μᾶλλον κεκαθαρμένος, Leg. 3.100; ἄκρως … καθαρθεῖσα, Abr. 122). Likewise, the mind that sees the single vision is likened to an initiate into the greater, rather than the lesser, mysteries (τὰ μεγάλα μυστήρια μυηθείς, Leg. 3.100; μεγάλας τελεσθεῖσα τελετάς, Abr. 122). Finally, the object of vision in both cases is the “form” of God, not a reflection of that form (τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν, Leg. 3.101; τὴν … ἰδέαν, Abr. 122).⁸¹ For Philo, then, it

 Philo does, in at least one place, identify the Logos with God’s image and idea (Somn. 2.45– 46: τὸν ὅλον ἐσφράγισε κόσμον εἰκόνι καὶ ἰδέᾳ, τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ); however, the context

294

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

seems clear that the highest kind of vision is that requested—and apparently achieved—by Moses in Exod 33:13. Abraham’s threefold vision in Gen 18:1–11, which includes seeing the Logos, remains a “second best voyage” (δεύτερος πλοῦς, Abr. 123).⁸² The foregoing discussion of Mosaic vision has important ramifications for 2 Cor 3:16–18. Most saliently, if Paul were aware of the kind of Mosaic visionary tradition found in Leg. 3.100–101, his choice to limit Mosaic contemplation of God in 2 Cor 3:16–18 to vision of the εἰκών/δόξα stands in contrast to Philo’s portrait in this passage. For Paul, mirror-vision and image-vision are not a secondbest for Moses, but the whole end of Mosaic exemplarity. Paul’s Platonized Judaism, in other words, stands much closer to Wisdom 7:25–26 and Mut. 7–10 than to Leg. 3.100–101.⁸³ More crucially, the end of Mosaic vision for Paul is not merely the invisible image of God (2 Cor 3:18; cf. Col 1:15), but his material visage as well: the human face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6). As such, exemplary Mosaic vision for Paul requires contemplation of both Philonic “shadows,” the immaterial and the material. The irony of such “wisdom” would not be lost on a well-educated Corinthian Christian. For Paul, however, Christ the image is emphatically not presented as a Platonizing shadow of God, no matter how luminous; for Paul, Christ and the Pauline gospel are all illumination (φωτισμόν, 2 Cor 4:4; φωτισμόν, 2 Cor 4:6), sprung from God’s light (φῶς) in creation (Gen 1:3) and the covenantal re-creation in the “glorious way,” foretold by Isaiah, in Galilee of the Gentiles (Isa 9:1). Paul thus carefully controls the kind of Mosaic exemplarity his letter supports. By his explicit choice of Exod 34:29–35 as the scriptural narrative by which to expound a Christian-Mosaic parrhēsia, he intentionally connects transformative vision to the tent of meeting. Like Exod 33:7–11, Exod 34:29–35 grounds Mosaic parrhēsia in Moses’ priestly entry into the tabernacle and his vision of divine glory in created matter rather than in the request for unmediated vision made by Moses in Exod 33:12–23. The presence of a Moses-tabernacle parrhēsia in both Paul and Hebrews suggests that this exegetical tradition, which sees

there points to the Word’s role as paradigm in and for creation, as ἰδέα ἰδεῶν (Migr. 103; Opif. 69), rather than as a manifestation of God’s self per se.  Thus, in this instance, I disagree with Litwa, “Transformation through a Mirror,” 292–293, who argues that σκία should be limited solely to the created “nature” in Leg. 3.100 and that Moses here “specifies” his desire for “a vision of God’s Logos.”  As mentioned earlier, the position which emerges from this reading of Leg. 3.100–101 is atypical for Philo. It might, however, reflect or represent a position held more firmly by the radical allegorizers whom Philo often mentions and whose exegeses are occasionally incorporated in his commentaries.

6.4 A People Like Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18)

295

God’s image and God’s glory uniquely reflected in the person of Jesus, became popular early on in the inchoate Christian movement. To summarize: Philo bears witness to two traditions of transformation in terms of Mosaic vision, those based in the tabernacle reflection and those based in a more unmediated vision. Paul, for his part, while using an exegetical pattern known from Philo’s commentaries, has not simply rehashed a Platonizing Jewish commentary on Exod 34:29–35. Rather, he offers his own messianic interpretation of the pericope, selected carefully for its connotations of prophetic occlusion, covenant renewal, and exemplary vision of divine glory in the tabernacle. The unique combination of these three themes in the text made it irresistible to Paul. This does not mean that the major elements of Mosaic vision in 2 Cor 3:16–18 are foreign to Paul’s Judaism. Rather, as I demonstrated in the case of Philo’s Abraham—and also often in the case of Philo’s Moses—transformative vision of the image of God had a place in Alexandrian exegetical tradition.⁸⁴ God’s promise to reveal his “back” (τὰ ὀπίσω μου) to Moses in Exod 33:23, which Philo implies is an epiphany of the Logos (Mut. 9–10), may provide the Jewish exegetical background through which the Synoptic Transfiguration accounts are elaborated. What is unique in 2 Cor 3:16–18 is Paul’s elevation of Mosaic tabernacle-vision of God’s image to the highest rank, as the primary model for Christian imitation; his wedding of that image to a particular, historical messiah; and his radical democratization of ecclesial parrhēsia (2 Cor 3:18)—a democratization which transcends even the Synoptic Transfiguration scenes, in which “we all” is limited to Peter, James, and John, alongside Moses and Elijah. By explicitly limiting any potential Corinthian aspirations for a higher, more exclusive kind of vision (perhaps modeled on the Mosaic tradition represented by Leg. 3.100–101), Paul encourages his ecclesia to “underachieve” according to Hellenistic Mosaic standards. Such an underachievement, as noted earlier, may well be intentional on Paul’s part, as the apostle of the new covenant also ironically highlights his own lack of sufficiency in several places (see, e. g., 2 Cor 3:1). ⁸⁵ This current of Mosaic underachievement fits well within Paul’s larger paradoxical stance within the Corinthian Correspondence: the wisdom of Christ fails to match (in human terms) the Hellenistic wisdom of his day, but likewise transcends it on a different evaluative plain.

 For the limited vision ascribed to Moses, see Philo, Mut. 7–17.  For the connections between the theme of ministerial “sufficiency” and Moses, see LXX Exod 4:1 and Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 33. For Paul’s failed Mosaic ascent in 2 Cor 12:1–7, see Litwa, “Paul’s Mosaic Ascent,” 238–257.

296

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

6.5 A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo In Acts 18:24–26, Luke recounts how Apollos, a rhetorically trained Jewish Christian missionary from Alexandria, began to “speak boldly” (παρρησιάζεσθαι) about Jesus in the synagogue at Ephesus. Although well-versed in the scriptures (δυνατὸς ὢν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς), he knew nothing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus, when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, “they took him aside and explained to him more exactly about the Way” (Acts 18:26). Paul’s opponents in Corinth may have been cut from a similar cloth. As I have suggested, a probable scenario is that in 2 Cor 3:12–4:6 we see Paul contending with Hellenistic Jewish Christian rivals over the true meaning of apostolic parrhēsia and the right way to read the Pentateuch for ethical edification in light of the Spirit. Not all frank speech and scriptural interpretation, it seems, was uplifting for the Corinthian body. It is also striking that Paul in 2 Corinthians is concerned with realigning his opponents’ understanding of the ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:6, 8, 17)—the very point on which Apollos, despite his own zealous spirit (Acts 18:25), seems to have been poorly catechized, given that he knew nothing of the Spirit’s baptism. Paul insists that there are right and wrong ways to read the figure of Moses in Exodus 34; to grasp that “the Lord is the Spirit” is essential (2 Cor 3:17). While these similarities do not suggest that Apollos himself is one of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians (quite the contrary, in fact, is indicated by 1 Corinthians), it does confirm my supposition that a group of Hellenistic Jewish Christian ministers of a similar ilk may well have been active in Corinth after Paul’s departure. We are left, then, with a genuine tension in Paul’s thought. On the one hand, as I have argued in this study, Paul is deeply indebted to his Jewish education and to Jewish commentary traditions, which he found quite amenable to his Gospel message. His use of a kind of Mosaic exemplarity in 2 Cor 3:16–18 as a pattern of Christian transformation stands within the footprint of the kinds of traditions found in Philo’s Allegorical Commentary. Whether Paul learned these traditions in his advanced Jewish education or in conversation with Alexandrian ministers in Corinth, they signal his desire not to reject the Jewish origins of his Gospel. Paul’s construal of his own renewed-covenant ministry in continuity with that of Jeremiah, with an assist from the Moses of Exodus 34, mirrors the same exegetical logic underlying the Palestinian three-year lectionary cycle. On the other hand, Paul does not accept these traditions wholesale without transforming them in light of his messianism. In his selection of Exodus 34 and his emphasis on Moses’ veiled and unveiled visage, Paul recalibrates the Moses tradition according to the exigencies of the Corinthian crisis. Paul’s ministry is

6.5 A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo

297

explicitly “not like Moses” (2 Cor 3:12)—yet this does not constitute an absolute rejection of the Hellenistic Jewish understanding of Mosaic exemplarity. Rather, Paul’s “not like Moses” is “dialectical negation” that ought to be understood, in a Jeremianic sense (LXX Jer 38:32), as an eschatological reorientation of Jewish tradition, of the sort found in Jesus’ halakhic teaching as well.⁸⁶ While Paul thus explicitly draws attention away from the Moses of Exod 33:12–23 (in favor of the Moses of Exod 34:29–35) and the interpretation of this pericope represented by Leg. 3.100–101, this does not signify the absolute incompatibility of such traditions with Paul’s thought. Particularly, as I have argued in this study, Philo’s more typical reading of Exod 33:12–23, represented by Mut. 7– 10, with its emphasis on the visibility of God only through his Logos, has much in common with Paul’s vision in 2 Cor 3:7–18. This point was not lost on later Christian readers. Gregory of Nyssa, the fourth century Cappadocian father, would famously enshrine a Christian allegory of Exodus 33, which owes much to Philo,⁸⁷ in his mystical masterpiece, De vita Moysis. Gregory’s warrant for such a reading owes a debt to Paul, the first extant exegete to see in Moses’ glorious vision an exemplar of Christian transformation. It is no wonder, then, that in reading Moses’ request in Exod 33:12 (and God’s subsequent answer in Exod 33:22–23), Gregory does so not only with an eye to Philo, but also with an eye to Paul. In closing this study, it seems fitting then to let Gregory have the last word— in effect, to let the Cappadocian propose the synthesis of the dialogue between Paul and Philo that I have constructed.⁸⁸ A full comparison of Gregory’s exegesis of Exodus 33 and 34 in De vita Moysis clearly exceeds the scope of these final pages. Instead, I offer a few summary points, first looking at Gregory’s exegesis of Exodus 34 and then at his interpretation of Exodus 33. To frame this study-in-miniature, it is noteworthy that Gregory appears to put comparatively more weight on Exodus 33 than Exodus 34. Intriguingly, in his allegory in the second book of Moses’ Vita, Gregory inverts the sequence of these chapters, interpreting Exodus 34 in Vit. Moys. 2.214–218 and then Exodus  For “dialectical negation” in the Jesus tradition, and in Jewish prophetic writing more broadly (e.g. Hos 6:6), see Meier, Marginal Jew, 4:44, esp. note 83.  See Albert C. Geljon, Philonic Exegesis in Gregory of Nyssa’s De vita Moysis (SPhAMS 5; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2002).  I owe my interest in Gregory of Nyssa as a reader of Paul to Morwenna Ludlow, my teacher at Oxford, with whom I first read Gregory’s De vita Moysis and De anima et resurrectione. For Gregory as a reader of 1 Corinthians 15 (among other texts), see Morwenna Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner (OTRM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). The case for Gregory’s importance in the formation of early Christian exegesis has recently been made by Margaret Mitchell, Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, a revision of her Oxford Speaker’s Lectures.

298

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

33 in Vit. Moys. 2.219–255. The fact that Gregory lets Exodus 33 have the final word here, and in the entire treatise as well, shaping his conclusion to the De vita Moysis on this passage, may suggest the greater prominence of Exodus 33 in his thought.⁸⁹ Equally telling as indices of Gregory’s scriptural priorities are the differing Pauline lenses through which he reads these respective chapters from Exodus. While 2 Corinthians 3:7–4:6, unsurprisingly, provides the vista from which Gregory interprets Exodus 34, his more expansive discussion of Exodus 33 is conducted in light of the third chapter of Philippians, particularly Phil 3:13– 14—two verses which, according to Abraham Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, constitute “the essential passage which is the text for the book.”⁹⁰ Gregory’s prioritization of Exodus 33 over Exodus 34 is thus apparently mirrored by his prioritization of Philippians over 2 Corinthians as offering the center of Paul’s spiritual vision. Neither of these Gregorian preferences will turn out to be as rigid as they seem. Before returning to these questions, however, I want to chart first the ways in which Gregory’s interpretation of Exodus 34 reflects and supports the foregoing analysis of Paul’s primary exegetical moves in 2 Cor 3:7–18. First, in Vit. Moys. 214, Gregory emphasizes Moses’ role not merely as author of a death-dealing law, but as restorer of a gracious covenant: καὶ οὕτως ἀνακαλεῖται τὴν χάριν, φέρων ἐν ταῖς λιθίναις δέλτοις τὸν νόμον, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ λίθῳ τὰς φωνὰς ἐντυπώσαντος. And thus, [Moses] restores grace, although he carried the law on stony tablets, since God himself was imprinting the words in the stone.⁹¹

While such tablets are written—and hence, present the possibility of human misunderstanding—they are also God-inscribed, and as such, eternally revelatory. Gregory’s ἐντυπώσαντος, with its divine subject, clarifies and interprets Paul’s ἐντετυπωμένη in 2 Cor 3:7 as a divine passive. This has the function of validating Moses’ διακονία not merely as a type of later figures, but also as a work of covenant renewal in its own right. The presentation is not wholly positive, however; Gregory also highlights the ambivalent nature of a written ministry—an ambivalence which, I argued, attains to Paul’s ministry (2 Cor 4:3) as well as Moses’

 Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.319.  Abraham Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, eds., Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses (CWS 31; New York: Paulist, 1978), 185, note 306. See Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.225. The passage is also referenced at the prologue of the work (Vit. Moys., Prologue, 1).  Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.214.

6.5 A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo

299

(2 Cor 3:7) in 2 Corinthians. On Gregory’s reading, nonetheless, Moses emerges as a minister of χάρις—a reading which unveils a truly Pauline portrait of Moses, albeit one which also reads Paul beyond the limits of his Corinthian letter. Second, Gregory’s allegory recognizes and extends Paul’s anthropological exegesis of Moses’ stony tablets in Exodus 34.⁹² Paul’s image of the “stony heart” in 2 Cor 3:3 already owes something to the intertext with LXX Ezek 11:19. Paul’s riff on this image, in light of Exodus 34, gives Gregory the opportunity to extend the allegory back to Exodus 32 and the destruction of the first tablets of the law: εἰ γὰρ ἀληθεύει ὁ θεῖος ᾿Aπόστολος καρδίας ὀνομάζων τὰς πλάκας, τουτέστι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀληθεύει δὲ πάντως ὁ διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ διερευνώμενος, ἔστιν ἐκ τούτου δι’ ἀκολούθου μαθεῖν ὅτι ἀσύντριπτος ἦν τὸ κατ’ ἀρχὰς καὶ ἀθάνατος ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις. For if the divine Apostle speaks the truth in naming “the tablets” as hearts, i.e. the governing part of the soul (and he, who through the Spirit searches the depths of God [cf. 1 Cor 2:10], speaks the truth entirely), [then] it is possible to learn from this that at the beginning, human nature was uncrushed and immortal.⁹³

Accepting Paul’s reading of Moses’ tablets in Exod 34:29 as καρδίαι and extending his allegory canonically to the broader narrative of lawgiving at Sinai, Gregory is able to detect, in the pristine creation, destruction, and reinscription of the tablets of the law, an allegory of the creation, marring, and repristination of human nature. While the scriptural scope of Gregory’s allegory thus far extends Paul’s narrower focus on LXX Exod 34:29–35, the anthropological turn of his allegory to the repristination of Adamic nature picks up on the authentically Pauline concern with the Mosaic/Christological recovery of Adam’s lost εἰκών (2 Cor 3:18, 4:4). Critically, Gregory does not speak of the “image” here, but of the total restoration of ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις. In this, he includes not only the immaterial, but also the material—not only the heavenly human being but the human being from earth⁹⁴—in the broken twofold tablets that Christ, the true lawgiver, gloriously restored, through the divine finger of the Spirit.⁹⁵ While drawing more explicitly on a Philonic dualism, Gregory faithfully represents Paul’s concern with the theological import of the material body of the last Adam evident in 2 Corinthians 3–5, as well as 1 Corinthians 15.

   

See 2 Cor 3:3, 14–15, 4:4, 6. Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.215. Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.216: ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἡμῶν. Ibid.

300

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

Third, following upon this anthropological turn, Gregory also adopts Paul’s interpretive move in 2 Cor 3:14–15 of “shifting the blame” from Moses to the sons of Israel to account for the Israelites inability to see Moses’ glorified face. Intriguingly absent, in fact, throughout Vit. Moys. 214–218 is any mention of that most important Mosaic image, the veil. Rather, it is only the marred hearts of the would-be viewers of Moses and of the Christ he typifies that effect their inability: οὐκέτι χωρητὸς ταῖς ὄψεσι τῶν ἀναξίων γίνεται, τῷ ὑπερβάλλοντι τῆς δοξῆς ἀπροσπέλαστος τοῖς πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁρῶσι γινόμενος. [Moses] becomes incomprehensible to the eyes of the unworthy and unapproachable to those who look on him because of the overwhelming [nature] of [his] glory.⁹⁶

While Gregory, like Paul, takes some exegetical license in interpreting the Israelites’ fear to approach Moses in Exod 34:30, Gregory harmonizes Paul’s two accounts of the Israelites’ blindness (2 Cor 3:7–11: glory too bright; 2 Cor 3:12–18, glory veiled) by subsuming the latter under the former—i.e. by removing the veil entirely from his interpretation—and suggesting that Moses’ superabundant glory (τῷ ὑπερβάλλοντι τῆς δοξῆς; cf. 2 Cor 3:10!) in fact indicates the cognitive and ethical deficiency of his would be viewers (2 Cor 3:14). If Paul’s veiled readers of Torah do appear in Gregory’s allegory, it is only in the guise of the impious Judaizers mentioned by Gregory in Vit. Moys. 2.218. Like Paul, then, Gregory also uses the negative exemplum of the Jews reading in the synagogue as an allegory for a real or fictive Jewish-Christian “other.” In Paul’s case, I argued that these were the Hellenistic-Jewish Christian ministers, with an exegetical and sophistic pedigree similar to Apollos’s. In Gregory’s case, the “impious Judaizers” likely refer to the Arians.⁹⁷ While neither of these groups are halakhically Judaizing in the manner of the teachers in Galatia, Gregory’s application of the title “Judaizers” to the Arians suggests an important analogy with Paul and his opponents: in both cases, the issue causing friction for the Christian churches has to do with the correct reading of the relationship between scripture, tradition, and philosophy.⁹⁸ As such, Gregory implicitly affirms the conclusion that scriptural exegesis—rather than mere sophistic physiognomy—stands at the center of Paul’s struggle with the rival ministers in 2 Corinthians as well.

 Ibid.  Malherbe and Ferguson, Life of Moses, 184, note 294.  For the “exegetical” description of Arianism, and the understanding of Arius as a conservative literalist exegete, see Williams, Arius, 156, 175, 236, et passim.

6.5 A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo

301

After this remarkable transformation and reapplication of Paul’s exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3–4, Gregory turns, in an even longer section,⁹⁹ to meditate on Exodus 33. Here lies the “heart” of Christian Mosaic exemplarity as Gregory construes it: Moses, not turning to the Logos in the tabernacle, but seeking the Existent face to face on the mountain: καὶ τοῦτο βούλεται ἡ τολμηρά τε καὶ παριοῦσα τοὺς ὅρους τῆς ἐπιθυμίας αἴτησις τὸ μὴ διὰ κατόπτρων τινῶν καὶ ἐμφάσεων, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀπολαῦσαι τοῦ κάλλους. ἡ δὲ θεία φωνὴ δίδωσι τὸ αἰτηθὲν δι’ ὧν ἀπαναίνεται. And the daring request, marching over the mountains of desire, wishes this: not to [see the divine] through any mirrors or reflections, but to enjoy the Beauty face to face. And the divine voice gives what is requested through what is denied.¹⁰⁰

Gregory, like Philo, sees in Moses an exemplary and exemplaric desire to know God in his essence. In Gregory’s τὸ μὴ διὰ κατόπτρων τινῶν, one can hear an echo of the (negative and indefinite) request of Philo’s Moses in Leg. 3.101: μηδὲ κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν. Gregory’s base text is Exod 33:12–13; God’s negative answer to Moses’ request drawn from Exod 33:20–23 likewise echoes the dominant Philonic perspective of mediated Mosaic vision, represented by Mut. 7–10. The prominence of Exodus 33 over Exodus 34 in De vita Moysis may give some the feeling that Paul’s glory has been eclipsed by the comparatively greater glory of Philo in Gregory’s thought. Gregory’s warrant, moreover, for importing Philo’s Mosaic exemplarity comes not from the Corinthian Correspondence, but Phil 3:13–14, with its incipient theologoumenon, ἐπέκτασις: ἀεὶ πάντως ὑψηλοτέρα ἑαυτῆς γίνεται, τῇ τῶν οὐρανίων ἐπιθυμίᾳ συνεπεκτεινομένη τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν, καθώς φησιν ὁ ᾿Aπόστολος, καὶ πάντοτε πρὸς τὸ ὑψηλότερον τὴν πτῆσιν ποιήσεται. And [this kind of Mosaic soul] always goes higher and higher, pressing on toward what lies before, as the Apostle says, because of [its] desire for things heavenly; at all times, it makes its flight toward what is higher.¹⁰¹

Gregory’s συνεπεκτεινομένη τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν cites Paul’s τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος,¹⁰² cleverly reading Philippians with (συν-) an assist from Plato’s Phaedrus (ἡ τῶν οὐρανίων ἐπιθυμία) and allegorizing Paul’s characteristic apos Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.219–255.  Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.232.  Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys, 2.225.  Phil 3:13.

302

6. Lifting the Veil: 2 Cor 3:7–18 in Light of the Hellenistic Moses-Tabernacle

tolic endurance as the exemplaric symbol of the inexhaustible “searching” of the Mosaic soul. Despite being denied direct vision, the Moses soul nonetheless receives its request in its capacity to “press on” asymptotically toward the face-toface vision of the Existent and the Beautiful. While granting the quantitative and thematic primacy of Philippians 3 and Exodus 33 in De vita Moysis, one should, nonetheless, not overlook the fact that Gregory’s construction of Mosaic exemplarity in this text would have been impossible without Paul’s precedent in 2 Corinthians 3. In fact, a second way to account for Gregory’s metathesis of the sequence in which he treats Exodus 34 and Exodus 33 would be to suggest that Paul’s remarkable, anthropological exegesis of the former chapter led Gregory into a Philonic study of the latter. Gregory’s whole project, if fact, is justified in Vit. Moys. 2.215 in his depiction of Paul as ὁ διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ διερευνώμενος, “the one who through the Spirit searches the depths of God.” By giving 1 Cor 2:10 an exegetical inflection, Gregory reveals the Pauline methodological basis (Spirit-led textual διερεύνησις)¹⁰³ underpinning Paul’s paradigmatic example of Mosaic exegesis (2 Cor 3:7–18)—thus revealing, as Margaret Mitchell has recently claimed, that the Corinthian Correspondence is in fact the birthplace of Christian hermeneutics. Paul’s elaborate exegesis of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians thus de facto legitimizes the whole project of constructing a Christian Mosaic exemplarity, which Gregory then extends in a Philonic direction. Paul’s own construction of Mosaic exemplarity in 2 Cor 3:7–18, while perhaps lesser in glory to Gregory’s mind, is not entirely eclipsed. Both figures, the glorified Moses of Exodus 34 and the God-seeking Moses of Exodus 33 are combined by Gregory in one climactic passage: λάμπει τῇ δόξῃ. Καὶ διὰ τοσούτων ἐπαρθεὶς ὑψωμάτων, ἔτι σφριγᾷ τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ ἀκορέστως ἔχει τοῦ πλείονος. He shines in glory. And though he has been exalted through such great heights, he is still bursting with desire and unsatiated for more.¹⁰⁴

Here, the two models of Mosaic exemplarity traced in this chapter are recombined by Gregory in a way which lifts up both in harmony. Clearly, Gregory’s reading does not leave Paul’s model of Mosaic exemplarity from 2 Cor 3:7–18 unchanged. The salient differences, particularly Gregory’s removal of Moses’ veil,

 Gregory may make the exegetical connection between 2 Corinthians 3 and 1 Cor 2:10 on the basis of Paul’s emphasis on the Spirit in 2 Cor 3:17–18.  Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Moys. 2.230.

6.5 A Synthetic Postscript: Gregory of Nyssa Reading Paul and Philo

303

signals Gregory’s more uniformly positive assessment of Moses. Paul’s Moses, constructed in the context of the crisis at Corinth, was a more mixed figure. Gregory reads Paul rightly, however, in detecting in 2 Cor 3:7–18 an exegetical kernel that might grow into a much larger plant, when brought into dialogue with the full witness of Israel’s scriptures. Moses’ glory may be fading (2 Cor 3:11, 13); but it is not yet eclipsed (Eph 2:15). In seeing Moses as a perpetual paradigm of unveiled vision of the Lord, the apostle from Tarsus and the Cappadocian father agree: λάμπει τῇ δόξῃ.

References Aizpurua, Paul, ed. Sénèque et saint Paul: Lettres. Paris: Gallimard, 2000. Adams, E. and D. Horrell. Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Albertini, Eugène. La composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de Sénèque. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1923. Amir, Yehoshua. “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” Pages 421 – 53 in Mikra: Text, Translation & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity. Edited by Marvin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004 (1988). Anderson, Gary A. Sin: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Anderson, Paul N. “The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse and Its Evolving Context.” Pages 1 – 59 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper. BIS 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Anisfeld, Rachel. Sustain Me with Raisin Cakes: Pesikta deRav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism. JSJSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Attridge, Harold A. “Making Scents of Paul: The Background and Sense of 2 Cor 2:14 – 17.” Pages 71 – 88 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. Leiden: Brill, 2003. —. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Aucher, Johann Baptist. Philonis Judaei paralipomena Armena. Venice, 1826. Aune, David E. “Midrash.” Pages 302 – 305 in The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Edited by David E. Aune. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. —. “Anthropological Duality in the Eschatology of 2 Corinthians 4:16 – 5:10.” Pages 215 – 39 in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Aus, Roger D. Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14 – 17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle: An Example of the Combination of Greco-Roman and Judaic Traditions in the Apostle Paul. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. Avemarie, Friedrich. “Interpreting Scripture through Scripture: Exegesis Based on Lexeatic Associations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 83 – 102 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García-Martinez. Leiden: Brill, 2009, 83 – 102. Bachman, Michael. “Die andere Frau. Synchrone und diachrone Beobachtungen zu Gal 4,21 – 5,1.” Pages 127 – 58 in idem, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Aposteles Paulus. NTOA 40. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Back, Frances. Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus: Eine religions-geschichtliche-exegetische Untersuchung zu 2 Kor 2,14 – 4,6. WUNT 2.153. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd ed. Translated by Christine van Boheemen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985 [1980].

References

305

Barlow, Claude W., ed. Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam. Horn, Austria: American Academy in Rome, 1938. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians.” Pages 1 – 16 in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr, 1976, 1 – 16. —. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994. Bartos, Michael and Bernard M. Levinson. “‘This Is the Manner of the Remission’: Implicit Legal Exegesis in 11QMelchizedek as a Response to the Formation of the Torah.” JBL 132 (2013): 351 – 71. Bassler, Jouette M., David M. Hay, and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Pauline Theology. 4 vols. SBLSymS 4. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Bastianini, Guido and David Sedley, Commentarium in Platonis “Theaetetum.” Pages 3.227 – 562 in Corpus dei papyri filosofici greci e latini. 4 parts. Firenze: Olschki, 1995. Bates, Matthew W. The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2012. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” TZTh 4 (1831): 61 – 206. Becker, Jürgen. “Der Brief an die Galater.” Pages 9 – 103 in Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser. Edited by idem and Ulrich Luz. NTD 8/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. —. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper’s New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Beker, Johan Christiaan. “Recasting Pauline Theology : The Coherence-Contingency Scheme as Interpretive Model.” Pages 1:15 – 24 in Pauline Theology. Edited by J. Bassler et al. 4 volumes. SBLSymS 4. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. —. The Triumph of God : The Essence of Paul’s Thought. Translated by Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. —. Paul the Apostle : The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Belleville, Linda. “Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.7 – 18.” Pages 165 – 186 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. —. Reflections of glory: Paul’s polemical use of the Moses-Doxa tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1 – 18. JSNTSup 52. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Bergsma, John S. The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation. VetTSup 115. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Berlin, Isaiah. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History. New York: New American Library, 1957. Bernstein, Moshe J. “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary.” JJS 45 (1994): 1 – 27. Betz, Hans Dieter. Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. —. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Edited by George W. MacRae. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

306

References

—. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. —. “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” NTS 21 (1975): 353 – 79. Betz, Otto. “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu.” NovT 6 (1963): 20 – 48. Birnbaum, Ellen. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes. SPhAMS. Atlanta, Scholars, 1996. Black, C. Clifton. “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christianity Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills.” HTR 81 (1988): 1 – 18. Blanton, Thomas R., IV. Constructing a New Covenant: Discursive Strategies in the Damascus Document and Second Corinthians. WUNT 2.233. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Bloch, René. “Midrash,” DBSup 5 [1955]: 1263 – 81. Bonazzi, Mauro. “The Commentary as Polemical Tool: The Anonymous Commentator on the Theaetetus against the Stoics.” LThPh 63/3 (2008): 597 – 605. —. Un dibattito tra academici e platonici sull’eredità di Platone: La testimonianza del commentario anonimo al Teeteto.” Pages 4.1.41 – 74 in Corpus dei papyri filosofici greci e latini. 4 parts. Firenze: Olschki, 1995. Borgen, Peder. The Gospel of John: More Light from Philo, Paul and Archaeology : The Scriptures, Tradition, Exposition, Settings, Meaning. NovTSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2014. —. “John 6: Tradition, Interpretation and Composition.” Pages 95 – 114 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper. BIS 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. NovTSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NovTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1965. —. “Observations on the Midrashic Character of John 6.” ZNW 54 (1963): 232 – 40. Bousset, Wilhelm. Jüdische-Christlicher Schultrieb in Alexandria und Rom.: Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Irenäus. FRLANT, NF 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1915. Bowersock, Glen W. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Bowie, Ewen. “Mapping Greece: Apollonius’ Authorised Version.” Pages 37 – 61 in Lieux de mémoire en Orient grec à l’époque impériale. Edited by Anne Gangloff. Bern: Peter Lang, 2013. —. “The Geography of the Second Sophistic: Cultural Variations.” Pages 65 – 83 in Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic. Edited by B. E. Borg. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. —. “The Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic.” Past and Present 46 (1974): 3 – 41. Bowker, J. W. “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form.” NTS 14 (1967/68): 96 – 111. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Contraversions 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Brittain, Charles. Philo of Larissa: The Last of the Academic Sceptics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Brooke, George J., ed. DSD 19 (2012): 249 – 484. —. “Prophetic Interpretation in the Pesharim.” Pages 235 – 54 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. —. “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures.” Pages 134 – 157 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

References

307

—. “The Commentary on Genesis A and the New Testament.” Pages 177 – 94 in idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. —. “Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and in the New Testament.” Pages 60 – 73 in idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. —. “The Genre of 4Q252: From Poetry to Pesher.” DSD 1 (1994): 160 – 79. —. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985. Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. AB 29ab. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985 (Translation of Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Götttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). —. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971 ( = Das Evangelium des Johannes 1964/66). —. Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963. —. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. FRLANT 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [1910]. Burns, Joshua E. “Rabbinic Literature: New Testament.” Pages 247 – 256 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Edited by M. D. Coogan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Burnyeat, Miles, ed. The Theaetetus of Plato. Translated by M. J. Levett. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1990. Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1964 [1921]. Campbell, Jonathan G. The Exegetical Texts. Companion to the Scrolls 4. London: T & T Clark, 2004. —. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1 – 8, 19 – 20. BZAW 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Cancik, Hildegard. Untersuchungen zu Senecas epistulae morales. Spudasmata 18. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967. Carminac, Jean. “Le document de Qumran sur Melchisédeq.” RevQ 7 (1969 – 71): 360 – 61. Carter, David M. “Citizen Attribute, Negative Right: A Conceptual Difference between Ancient and Modern Ideas of Freedom of Speech.” Pages 197 – 220 in Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Edited by I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen. MnSup 254. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Casey, T. G. and J. Taylor, eds. Paul’s Jewish Matrix. Bible in Dialogue 2. Mahway, NJ: Paulist, 2011. Cazeaux, Jacques. La trame et la chaîne: ou les structures littéraires et l’exégèse dans cinq des traités de Philon d’Alexandrie. ALGHJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Charlesworth, James, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Graphic Concordance. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991. Childs, Brevard S. The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. —. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974. Cohen, Naomi. Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from Prophets and Writings: Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Shaye. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

308

References

Collange, J.-F. Énigmes de la Deuxième Épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude Exégètique de 2 Cor. 2:14 – 7:4. SNTSMS 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Collins, John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. —. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. —. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. —. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000 (1984). Colson, F. C. “General Introduction.” Pages 1:ix–xxii in idem, Philo. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Dunkly. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975 (1969). Costa, Charles D. N. Seneca: 17 Epistles. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1988. Cover, Michael B. “A Bondsman’s Boldness and Prophetic Approach: Two Kinds of Parrēsia in 2 Corinthians 3:7 – 4:6,” Forthcoming. —. “‘Now and Above; Then and Now’ (Gal. 4:21 – 31): Platonizing and Apocalyptic Polarities in Paul’s Eschatology.” Pages 220 – 229 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by M. W. Elliott, S. J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and J. Frederick. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. —. “The Sun and the Chariot: The Republic and the Phaedrus as Sources for Rival Platonic Paradigms of Psychic Vision in Philo’s Biblical Commentaries.” SPhA 26 (2014): 151 – 167. —. “Reconceptualizing Conquest: Colonial Narratives and Philo’s Roman Accuser in the Hypothetica.” SPhA 22 (2010): 183 – 207. Dahl, Nils A. “Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans.” Pages 70 – 94 in idem, Studies in Paul : Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Davies, Philip R. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ‘Damascus Document’. JSOTSup 25. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983. Davies, William D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. Revised edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkely: University of California Press, 1992. Deissmann, Adolf and Lionel Strachan. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Greco-Roman World. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. Diels, Hermann and Wilhelm Schubart. Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) nebst drei Bruchstücken philosophischen Inhalts (Pap. N. 8; P. 9766.9569). Berliner Klassikertexte. Berlin: Weidmann, 2004 (1905). Dillon, John. “The Formal Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Exegesis.” Pages 77 – 87 in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a Commentary on the De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis. Edited by D. Winston and idem. Brown Judaic Studies 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983. Dochhorn, Jan. “Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit: Eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm 16,20a.” ZNW 98 (2007): 189 – 212. Dodd, Charles H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952.

References

309

Dodds, E. R. “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One’.” CQ 22 (1928): 129 – 141. Doering, Luz. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography. WUNT 298. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Donfried, Karl Paul. The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Duff, Paul B. Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3. NovTSup 159. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. —. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. —. Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38 A. Dallas: Word, 1988. —. “2 Corinthians III.17—‘The Lord is the Spirit.’” JTS 21 (1970): 309 – 320. Eastman, Susan. “Children of the Free Woman.” Pages 127 – 60 in eadem, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Ellis, E. Earle. “Exegetical Patterns in 1 Corinthians and Romans.” Pages 213 – 20 in idem, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. —. “Midraschartige Züge in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte.” ZNW 62 (1971): 94 – 104. —. “Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts.” Pages 303 – 12 in Mélanges bibliques en homage au R. P. Béda Rigaux. Edited by A. Descamps and R. P. A. de Halleux. (Gembloux) Duculot: 1970. —. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “The Unity of 2 Corinthians as Reflected in the Account of Paul’s and Titus’ Travels Between Ephesus, Macedonia and Corinth and the Theology of 2:14 – 7:4.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 19 November 2011. —. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: the Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Evans, Craig A. “The Scripture of Jesus and His Earliest Followers,” Pages 185 – 95 in The Canon Debate. Edited by L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. —. “The Prophetic Setting of the Pentecost Sermon.” Pages 212 – 24 in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. —. and J. A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. JSNTSS 83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Fassberg, Steven E. “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?” CBQ 74 (2012): 263 – 280. Fishbane, Michael. “Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” Pages 342 – 77 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Marvin J. Mulder. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004 (1988). Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. —. The Acts of The Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. —. “Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (II Cor. 3.7 – 4.6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif.” Theological Studies 42 (1981): 630 – 44.

310

References

—. The Semitic Background of the New Testament (= Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays). The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 (1971/1979). Foucault, Michel. The Courage of Truth (= trans.: Le courage de la vérité: le gouvernement de soi et des autres II: cours au Collège de France [1983 – 1984]). Translated by Graham Burchell. Edited by F. Gros. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011 (2008). Fraade, Steven. “Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran.” Pages 59 – 79 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. —. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. SUNY Series in Judaica. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Franklin, Eric. Christ the Lord: A Study in The Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Freudenthal, Jacob. Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (IV Makkabäerbuch): eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert. Breslau (Wroclaw): Schletter, 1869. Friedrich, G. “Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief.” Pages 181 – 215 in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über di Bibel. Festschrift für O. Michel zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Otto Betz, Martin Hengel, and Peter Schmidt. AGSU 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians. AB 32 A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984. Gabbay, Uri. “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia and Their Relation to Early Hebrew Exegesis.” DSD 19 (2012): 267 – 312. García-Martínez, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Garroway, Joshua D. Paul’s Gentile-Jews: Neither Jew nor Gentile, but Both. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Gebhard, Elizabeth R. “The Isthmian Games and the Sanctuary of Poseidon in the Early Empire.” Pages 78 – 94 in Corinthia in the Roman Period. Edited by Timothy E. Gregory. Journal of Roman Archeology Supplementary Series 8. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archeology, 1993. Gelardini, Gabriella. “Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av.” Pages 107 – 27 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights. Edited by eadem. BIS 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Translated by H. Attridge et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986 [Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, 1964]. Geljon, Albert C. and David T. Runia. Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. PACS 4. Leiden: Brill, 2013. —. Philonic Exegesis in Gregory of Nyssa’s De vita Moysis. SPhAMS 5. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2002. Gibson, Roy K. and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus. The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory. Mneumosyne Supplement 232. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935. Goulder, Michael D. “Σοφία in 1 Corinthians.” NTS 37 (1991): 516 – 534. Goulet, R. La Philosophie de Moïse. Paris: J. Vrin, 1987. Grabbe, Lester L. Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo. BJS 115. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.

References

311

Grafe, Eduard. “Das Verhältniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salmonis.” Pages 251 – 86 in Theologische Abhandlungen: Carl von Weizsäcker zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage 11. December 1892. Edited by Adolf von Harnack et al. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1892. Grant, Robert M. The Letter and the Spirit. London: S.P.C.K, 1957. Greenfield, J. C. “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, 15 – 19.” RQ 13 (1988): 319 – 22. Grimm, Werner. “Eschatologischer Saul Wider Eschatologischen David.” NovT 15 (1973): 114 – 33. Haase, Friedrich, ed. L. Annaei Senecae opera quae supersunt. 4 volumes. Leipzig: Teubner, 1902. Vol. 4 (Supplementum). Hadot, I. “Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l’Antiquité.” Antiquité Tardive 5 (1997): 169 – 76. Haenchen, Ernst. Die Apostelgeschichte. 7th edition. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1977 (1956). Hafemann, Scott. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: the Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Hammerton-Kelly, Robert G. “Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegomena to an Analysis of His Writings.” SPh 1 (1972): 3 – 26. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Hay, David. “References to Other Exegetes.” Pages 81 – 97 in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by idem. BJS 232. Atlanta: Scholars: 1991. —. “Philo’s References to Other Allegorists.” SPh 6 (1979 – 80): 41 – 75. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. —. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. —. “‘Have we found Abraham to Be Our Forefather according to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1.” NovT 27 (1985): 76 – 98. Heath, Malcom. “The unity of Plato’s Phaedrus.” OSAP 7 (1989): 151 – 73. —. ‘The unity of Plato’s Phaedrus: a postscript.’ OSAP 7 (1989): 189 – 91. Hecht, Richard D. “Philo and Messiah.” Pages 139 – 68 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at The Turn of The Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Heinemann, Joseph. “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim: A Form Critical Study.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 100 – 22. Hempel, Charlotte. The Damascus Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Hengel, Martin. “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited.” Pages 6 – 37 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. CJAS 13. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. —. The Pre-Christian Paul. London: SCM, 1991. —. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic period. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974 (1969). Hilgert, Earl A. “Introducing Studia Philonica.” SPh 1 (1972): 1.

312

References

Hirshman, Marc. “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries.” HTR 93 (2000): 101 – 15. Hoffmann, P, “What Was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators.” Pages 597 – 622 in A Companion to Ancient Philosophy. Edited by M. L. Gill and P. Pellegrin. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), 597 – 622. Holtz, Gudrun. “Von Alexandrien nach Jerusalem: Überlegungen zur Vermittlung philonisch-alexandrischer Tradition an Paulus.” ZNW 105 (2014): 228 – 263. Horgan, Maura P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horsley, G. H. R. “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts.” NTS 32 (1986): 609 – 14. Horsley, Richard A. Wisdom and Spiritual Transcendence at Corinth: Studies in First Corinthians. Eugene: Cascade, 2007. Inwood, Brad. Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jeremias, Joachim. “Paulus als Hillelit.” Pages 88 – 94 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969. Jeske, R. L. “The Rock was Christ: The Ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians 10.” Pages 245 – 55 in Kirche: Festschrift for G. Bornkamm. Edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jones, Christopher Prestige. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978. Juno, É. “Wodurch unterscheiden sich die Homilien des Origenes von seinen Kommentaren?” Pages 50 – 81 in Predigt in der Alten Kirche. Edited by E. Mühlenberg and J. van Oost. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. Kamesar, Adam. “Biblical Interpretation in Philo” Pages 65 – 91 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by idem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. —. “The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo of Alexandria and the D-Scholia to the Iliad.” GRBS 44 (2004): 163 – 81. Katz, Peter. Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and Its Place in The Textual History of The Greek Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Ker, James. The Deaths of Seneca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Klauck, Hans-Josef. 2. Korintherbrief. Neue Echter-Bibel, NT 8. Würzburg: Echter, 1994. Klein, Michael. “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique.” Biblica 57 (1976): 515 – 37. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. CCWJCW 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Edited by Douglas Hare. Revised edition. Macon, Georg.: Mercer University Press, 1987 [1950]. Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchireša. CBQMS 10. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Kobler, Franz. Letters of the Jews through the Ages: From Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century: Edited with an Introduction, Biographical Notes and Historical Comments. 2 volumes. London: Ararat Publishing Society, 1952.

References

313

Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift as Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament: Volume Two: History and Literature of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Kugel, James. “Two Introductions to Midrash.” Pages 77 – 103 in Midrash and Literature. Edited by G. H. Hartman and S. Budick. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Lambrecht, Jan. “Structure and Line of Thought in 2 Cor 2:14 – 4:6.” Bib 64 (1983): 344 – 80. Lamedica, A. “Il Papiro di Derveni come commentario: Problemi formali.” Pages 1:325 – 33 in Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo 2 – 9 September 1989. Edited by A. H S. El-Mosalamy. 2 volumes. Cairo: Ain Shams University, Center of Papyrological Studies, 1992. Langer, Ruth and Steven Fine, eds. Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Levenson, Jon D. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Levine, Lee. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Levison, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Lévy, Carlos. “Cicéron et le moyen Platonisme: le problème du souverain bien selon Platon.” REL 68 (1990): 50 – 65. Lewy, Hans. The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, Part I: The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction. Edited by Kirsopp Lake and Silva Lake. Studies and Documents 7. London: Christophers, 1936. Liebermann, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.–IV Century C.E. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 18. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. Lienhard, J. T. “Origen as Homilist.” Pages 36 – 52 in Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in honor of Walter J. Burghardt. Edited by D. Hunter. New York: Paulist, 1989. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Korinther I–II. 4th edition. Completed by W. G. Kümmel. HNT 9. Tübingen: Mohr, 1949. Lim, Timothy H. “Studying the Qumran Scrolls and Paul in their Historical Context.” Pages 135 – 156 in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by J. R. Davila. STDJ 46. Leiden: Brill, 2003. —. Pesharim. Companion to the Scrolls 3. London: T & T Clark, 2002. —. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and the Pauline Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Lincicum, David. Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy. WUNT 2.284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of The Old Testament Quotations.2nd edition. London: SCM, 1973 (1961). Linebaugh, Jonathan A. God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2013. —. “Announcing the Human: Rethinking the Relationship between Wisdom of Solomon 13 – 15 and Romans 1.18 – 2.11.” NTS 57 (2011): 214 – 237. Litwa, M. David. We are being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. BZNW 187. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.

314

References

—. “Transformation through a Mirror: Moses in 2 Cor 3.18.” JSNT 34 (2012): 285 – 97. —. “Paul’s Mosaic Ascent: An Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12.7 – 9.” NTS 57 (2011): 238 – 57. Long, Anthony and David Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Long, Fredrick J. Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians. SNTSMS 131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. London: SCM, 1984. Ludlow, Morwenna. Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. OTRM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Luz, Ulrich. “Paulinische Theologie als Biblische Theologie,” in Mitte der Schrift: ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch: Texte des Berner Symposions vom 6 – 12 Januar 1985. Edited by Martin Klopfenstein, idem, and Shemaryahu Talmon. Judaica et Christiana. Bern: Peter Lang, 1987. Mackie, Scott. “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” SPhA 21 (2009): 25 – 47. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Μὴ Γένοιτο in the Diatribe and Paul.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 231 – 40 —. and Everett Ferguson, eds. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses. CWS 31. New York: Paulist, 1978. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1986. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33 A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457 – 512. Masson, Robert. Without Metaphor, No Saving God: Theology after Cognitive Linguistics. Studies in Philosophical Theology 54. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Matera, Frank J. New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007. McGinn, Bernard. The Foundations of Mysticism. 5 volumes. The Presence of God: A History of Western Mysticism. New York: Crossroad, 1991 – 2013. McL. Wilson, Robert. “How Gnostic were the Corinthians?” NTS 19 (1972 – 73): 65 – 74. McNamara, Martin. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Meeks, Wayne. “‘And Rose Up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1 – 22.” JSNT 16 (1982): 64 – 78. —. “Epilogue: The Christian Proteus.” Pages 435 – 444 in idem, ed., The Writings of Saint Paul. New York: Norton, 1972. —. “Moses as God and King.” Pages 354 – 71 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Randall Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Neusner. NumenSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 4 vols. ABRL. 1991 – 2009. —. “The Quest for the Historical Pharisee: A Review Essay on Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer.” CBQ 61 (1999): 713 – 22. Michel, Otto. Paulus Und Seine Bibel. BFCT 18. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 [1929]. —. Der Brief an der Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955.

References

315

Milik, J. T. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by John Strugnell. London: SCM Press, 1959. —. “Fragments d’un midrash de Micheé dans les manuscrits de Qumrân.” RB 59 (1952): 412 – 18. Miller, M. P. “The Function of Isa 61:1 – 2 in 11Q Melchizedek.” JBL 88 (1969): 467 – 469. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul, The Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. —. “Paul’s Letters to Corinth: the Interpretive Intertwining of Literary and Historical Reconstruction.” Pages 307 – 38 in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Edited by D. N. Showalter and S. J. Friesen. HTS 53. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005. —. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: an Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Moessner, David P. “Luke’s ‘Plan of God’ from the Greek Psalter: The Rhetorical Thrust of the ‘Prophets and the Psalms’ in Peter’s Speech at Pentecost.” Pages 223 – 38 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Edited by P. Gray and G. R. O’Day. NovTSup 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Montanari, Franco. “Hypomnema.” Pages 6:642 – 43 in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World: Antiquity. Edited by H. Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. 16 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Morris, Jenny. “The Jewish Philosopher Philo” Pages 3.2.:819 – 70 in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973 – 87. Moule, C. D. F. The Birth of the New Testament. 3rd edition. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982 (1962). Moxnes, Halvor. Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans. SNT 3. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Keys to Second Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. —. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. —. “Co-Authorship in the Corinthian Correspondence.” RB 100 (1993): 562 – 579. —. “Philo and 2 Cor. 6:14 – 7:1.” RB 95 (1988): 55 – 69. —. St. Paul’s Corinth. 3rd edition. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2002 (1983). Nautin, Pierre. “Origene predicateur.” Pages 100 – 91 in Homélies sur Jérémie. SC 232. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Niehoff, Maren, ed. Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters. JSRC 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. —. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. —. “Did the Timaeus Create a Textual Community?” GRBS 47 (2007): 161 – 191. —. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. TSAJ 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “L’Exégèse de Philon d’Alexandrie dans le De Gigantibus et le Quod Deus sit Immutabilis.” Pages 5 – 75 in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus sit Immutabilis. Edited by David Winston and John Dillon. BJS 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983. —. Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie: son caractère et sa portée, observations philologiques. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

316

References

Novenson, Matthew V. “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos.” Pages 24 – 39 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by M. W. Elliott, S. J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and J. Frederick. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Novick, M. Tzvi. “Eschatological Ignorance and the Haft ̣arah: On Acts 13:27.” NovT 54 (2012): 168 – 75. —. “Peddling Scents: Merchandise and Meaning in 2 Corinthians 2:14 – 17.” JBL 130 (2011): 543 – 49. —. “Succeeding Judas: Exegesis in Acts 1:15 – 26.” JBL 129 (2010): 795 – 99. —. “Perspective, Paideia, and Accommodation in Philo,” SPhA 21 (2009): 49 – 62. Ofer, Yosef. “Sidre Nevi’im u-Ketuvim.” Tarbiz 58 (1989), 155 – 190. Opsomer, Jan. In Search of the Truth: Academic Tendencies in Middle Platonism. Wetteren: Universa, 1998. Palagi, Laura Bocciolini. Il carteggio apocrifo di Seneca e san Paolo: Introduzione, Testo, Commento. Studi Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere La Colombaria, 46. Firenze: Olschki, 1978. Pearson, Birger A. The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism. SBLDS 12. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Plunkett-Dowling, Regina. Reading and Restoration: Paul’s Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 1 – 9. Dissertation, Yale University, 2001. Rabbinovitz, Zvi M., ed. The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai according to the Triennial Cycle of the Pentateuch and the Holidays: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary [Hebrew]. 2 volumes. Jerusalem, 1985 – 87. Rabens, Volker. “Pneuma and the Beholding of God: Reading Paul in the Context of Philonic Mystical Traditions.” Pages 293 – 329 in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Jörg Frey and John R. Levison. Ekstasis 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. —. “Transformation through Contemplation: New Light from Philo on 2 Corinthians 3:18.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Chicago, Il., 17 November 2012. —. “Divine Spirit and Human Spirit in Paul in Light of Stoic and biblical-Jewish perspectives.” Pages 138 – 55 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner. I. H. Marshall, idem, and Cornelis Bennema, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. —. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. WUNT 2.283. Tübingen: Mohr, 2010. Radice, Roberto and Claudio Mazzarelli. Filone di Alessandria: le origini del male. I Classici del Pensiero. Milan: Rusconi, 1984. Räisänen, Heikki. “Zum Gebrauch von ΕΠΙΘΥΜΙΑ und ΕΠΙΘΥΜΕΙΝ bei Paulus.” StTh 33 (1979): 85 – 99. Rese, Martin. “Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 61 – 79 in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, Redaction, Théologie. Edited by J. Kremer et al. BETL 48. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979. Reydams-Schils, Gretchen. Demiurge and Providence: Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. —. “Stoicized Readings of Plato’s Timaeus in Philo of Alexandria.” SPhA 7 (1995): 85 – 102.

References

317

Richard, Earl, “Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II COR., III, 1 – IV, 6.” RB 88/3 (1981): 340 – 367. Richardson, Peter. “Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics.” EvQ 45 (1973): 208 – 18. Rosén, Haiim B. “The Comparative Assignment of Certain Hebrew Tense Forms.” Pages 212 – 234 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1969. Rothschild, Clare. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon. WUNT 235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Royse, James. “Some Observations on the Biblical Text of Philo’s De Agricultura.” SPhA 22 (2012): 111 – 29. —. “The Text of Philo’s De Abrahamo.” SPhA 20 (2008): 151 – 65. —. “The Text of Philo’s De Virtutibus.” SPhA 18 (2006): 73 – 101. —. “The Text of Philo’s Legum Allegoriae.” SPhA 12 (2000): 1 – 28. —. “The original structure of Philo’s Quaestiones.” SPhA 2 (1991): 109 – 139. —. The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria: A Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collections of Greek Fragments. ALGHJ 22. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Runia, David and Albert C. Geljon. Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. PACS 4. Leiden: Brill, 2013 —. “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatise De Agricultura.” SPhA 22 (2010): 87 – 109. —. Philo: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. PACS 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. —. “Secondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones.” Pages 47 – 79 in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by David Hay. BJS 232. Atlanta: Scholars, 1991. —. “Further Observations on the Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises.” VC 41 (1987): 105 – 38. —. “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises: A Review of Two Recent Studies and Some Additional Comments.” VC 38 (1984): 209 – 56. Russell, Donald A. and David Konstan, eds. Heraclitus: Homeric Problems. Writings from the Greco-Roman World 14. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. Russell, Donald A. “Letters to Lucilius.” Pages 70 – 95 in Seneca. Edited by C. D. N. Costa. GLSCLI. London: Routledge, 1974. Saito, Tadashi. Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen Testament. Bern: P. Lang, 1977. Sampley, J. Paul. “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians.” Pages 295 – 321 in Philodemus and the New Testament World. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. NovTSup 111. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Sandelin, Karl-Gustav. “Does Paul Argue Against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10.1 – 14?” Pages 165 – 82 in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by P. Borgen and S. Giversen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995. Sanders, Ed Parish. “Comparing Judaism and Christianity: An Academic Autobiography.” Pages 11 – 41 in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders. Edited by Fabian E. Udoh et al. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. —. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM, 1977.

318

References

Sanders, James A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” Pages 98 – 117 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and idem. JSNTSS 83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Schellenberg, Ryan S. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10 – 13. Early Christianity and its Literature 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. Philadelphia: JPS, 1994. Schironi, Francesca. “Greek Commentaries.” DSD 19 (2012): 399 – 441. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1951. Schmithals, Walter. Gnosticism in Corinth:An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians. Translated by J. E. Steeley. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1971. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. Translated by C. Hastings et al. New York: Seabury, 1980 (= Das Johannesevangelium, 1971). Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12 – 11,16). EKKNT 7/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991 – 2001. Schröter, Jens. “Schriftauslegung und Hermeneutik in 2 Korinther 3: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Schriftbenutzung des Paulus.” NovT 40 (1998): 231 – 275. Schulz, Siegfried. “Die Decke des Moses: Untersuchungen zu einer vorpaulinischen Überlieferung in 2 Kor. 3:17 – 18.” ZNTW 49 (1958): 1 – 30. Schürmann, Heinz. “Joh 6:51c—ein Schlüssel zur grossen johanneischen Brotrede.” BZ 2 (1958): 244 – 262. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1930]. Seitz, Christopher R. The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Sellin, Gerhard. “Einflüsse philonischer Logos-Theologie in Korinth: Weisheit und Apostelparteien (1Kor 1 – 4).” Pages 165 – 172 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003). Edited by Roland Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004. —. “Hagar und Sara: Religionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Schriftallegorese Gal 4,21 – 31.” Pages 59 – 84 in idem, Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag. BZNW 100. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. —. “Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes.” ANRW 2.25.4 (1987): 2964 – 86. —. Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten: Eine religions geschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Korinther 15. FRLANT 138. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Semler, Johann S. Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthos. Halle: Hemmerde, 1776. Siegert, Folker. Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten: Ps-Philon, ‘Über Jona’, ‘Über Jona’ (Fragment) und ‘Über Simson’: Bd. II, Kommentar nebst Beobachtungen zur hellenistischen Vorgeschichte der Bibelhermeneutik. WUNT 61. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. —. Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, ‘Über Jona’, ‘Über Simson’ und ‘Über die Gottesbezeichnung, wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer’: Bd. I: Übersetzung aus dem Armenischen und sprachliche Erläuterung. WUNT 20. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980.

References

319

Slomovic, Eliezar. “Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” RevQ (1969): 3 – 15. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian. SJLA 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Speiser, Ephraim A. Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 1. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. —. “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?” NovT 41 (1999): 124 – 144. —. Paul and the Language of Scripture : Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Sterling, Gregory E. “‘The Image of God’: Becoming Like God in Philo, Paul, and Early Christianity.” Pages 157 – 73 in Portraits of Jesus: Essays in Christology. FS Harold Attridge. WUNT 2.321. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. —. “When the Beginning is the End: the Place of Genesis in the Commentaries of Philo.” Pages 427 – 446 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen. VTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012. —. “The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Text.” Pages 415 – 34 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. —. Review of George H. Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context. SPhA 22 (2010): 294 – 97. —. “‘Do You Understand What You are Reading?’: The Understanding of the LXX in Luke-Acts.” Pages 101 – 118 in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie. Edited by Jörg Frey, Clare Rothschild, and Jens Schröter. BZNW 162. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. —. “Turning to God: Conversion in Greek Speaking Judaism and Early Christianity.” Pages 69 – 95 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl Holladay. Edited by Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day. NovTSup. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins.” Pages 21 – 52 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003). Edited by R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004. —. “Opening the Scriptures: The Legitimacy of the Jewish Diaspora and the Early Christian Mission.” Pages 199 – 225 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel. Edited by David P. Moessner. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 1999. —. “Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?” Pages 99 – 123 in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by David Hay. BJS 232. Atlanta: Scholars: 1991. —. “‘Philo has not been used half enough’: the Significance of Philo of Alexandria for the Study of the New Testament.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 251 – 269. —. “‘The School of Sacred Laws’: the Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises.” VC 53 (1999): 148 – 64.

320

References

—. “‘Wisdom among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity.” NT 37/4 (1995): 355 – 384. Steyn, Gert J. “The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7 – 11 in Hebrews 3 – 4.” Pages 194 – 228 in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception. Edited by D. J. Human and idem. New York: T & T Clark: 2010. Stockhausen, Carol K. “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis.” Pages 143 – 64 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. JSNTSS 83. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. —. Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant. AnBib 116. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989. Stowers, Stanley. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. —. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. —. “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.” NovT 26 (1984): 59 – 82. —. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981. Striker, Giesela. “Following Nature: A Study of Stoic Ethics.” OSAPh 9 (1991): 1 – 73. Svebakken, Hans. Philo of Alexandria’s Exposition on the Tenth Commandment. SPhAM 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Swancutt, Diana. “Christian ‘Rock’ Music at Corinth?” Pages 125 – 43 in Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian textual, liturgical, and artistic traditions. Edited by H. W. Attridge and Margot E. Fassler. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Tarrant, Harold. Plato’s First Interpreters. London: Duckworth, 2000. —. Scepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. —. “The Date of the Anonymous In Theaetetum,” CQ 33 (1983): 161 – 87. Tatum, Gregory. New Chapters in the Life of Paul: the Relative Chronology of his Career. CBQMS 41. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2006. Terrian, Abraham. “The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries.” Pages 29 – 46 in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by David Hay. BJS 232. Atlanta: Scholars: 1991. Theobald, Michael. Die überströmende Gnade: Studien zu einem paulinischen Motivfeld. Würzburg: Echter, 1972. Thiessen, Matthew. Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Early Judaism and Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thrall, Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC 34. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Thyen, Hartwig. Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie. FRLANT 47. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. Tobin, Thomas, S.J. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. CBQMS 14. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. Tönges, Elke. “The Epistle to the Hebrews as a ‘Jesus-Midrash.’” Pages 93 – 96 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BIS 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

References

321

Van der Minde, Hans-Jürgen. Schrift und Tradition bei Paulus: ihre Bedeutung und Funktion im Römerbrief. München: F. Schöningh, 1976. Van Henten, J. W. “The Story of Susanna as a Pre-Rabbinic Midrash to Dan. 1:1 – 2.” Pages 1 – 14 in Variety of Forms: Dutch Studies in Midrash. Edited by A. Kuyt, E.G.L. Schrijver, and N.A. van Uchelen. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1990. Vanhoye, Albert. Le structure litteraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux. Stud Neot 1. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1976 (1963). Van Kooten, George H. Paul’s Anthropology in Context: the Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity. WUNT 232. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Van Unnik, W. C. “‘With Unveiled Face,’ an Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12 – 18.” NovT 6 (1963): 153 – 69. Vogt, Herman J. “Origen of Alexandria.” Pages 1:536 – 574 in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. 2 volumes. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wachholder, Ben Zion. Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography. New York: Ktav, 1976. —. “Prolegomenon” to Jacob Mann, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus with a Hebrew Section containing Manuscript Material of Midrashim to these Books. LBS. New York: Ktav, 1971 (repr. 1940). Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Wan, Sze-kar. “Philo’s Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim: A Synoptic Approach.” SBLSP 32 (1993): 22 – 53. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Weiss, Johannes. Der erste Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Wesselius, J. W. “The Literary Genre of the Story of Susanna and its Original Language.” Pages 15 – 25 in Variety of Forms: Dutch Studies in Midrash. Edited by A. Kuyt, E. G. L. Schrijver, and N. A. van Uchelen. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1990. Whitmarsh, Tim. The Second Sophistic. GR 35. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Willi-Plein, Ina. “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis.” Pages 27 – 29 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BIS 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001 (1987). Wills, Lawrence. “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity.” HTR 77 (1984): 277 – 99. Wilson, Walter T. “A Third Form of Righteousness: The Theme and Contribution of Matthew 6.19 – 7.12 in the Sermon on the Mount.” NTS 53 (2007): 303 – 24. Windisch, Hans. Der zweite Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924. Winston, David and John Dillon, eds. Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a Commentary on the De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis. BJS 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983. —. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985. Winter, Bruce W. Philo and Paul among the Sophists. SNTSMS 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Pages 113 – 245.

322

References

Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2nd edition. Structure and Growth of Philosophic Systems from Plato to Spinoza 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948 (1947). Wolter, Michael. “Das Israelproblem nach Gal 4,21 – 31 und Röm 9 – 11.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 107 (2010): 1 – 30. Wright, Addison G. The Literary Genre Midrash. Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1967. Wright, Nicholas T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. —. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009. —. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 1997. —. “Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3:18” Pages 139 – 150 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology: in Memory of George Bradford Caird. Edited by L. D. Hurst and idem. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Yadin, Azzan. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Zeller, Dieter. “Die angebliche Enthusiastische oder spiritualistische Front in 1 Kor 15.” SPhA 13 (2001): 176 – 189.

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament NB: Unless otherwise *noted, numbers refer to the LXX. Genesis 1:2 118 1:3 294 1:27 86, 287 2 – 3 113 2:2 165 – 166 2:7 118 2:17 287 2:25 283 – 286 3 30 3:15 48 3:18 116 3:21 287 6:1 – 12 114 – 121, 126, 157, 233 – 234, 282 – 283 7:11 55 8:4 55 10:11 200 11:31 – 12:9 121, 123 11:2 277 11:30 40, 45 12 – 21 32 12:1 – 9 34, 56, 121 – 124, 283 13:5 34 15 40 15:3 – 4 56 15:5 56 – 58, 61, 70, 90 15:6 34, 48, 51 – 62, 72, 90, 99 15:7 – 8 56 15:13 149 16 32, 34, 40 16 – 17 34 16 – 21 40 16:15 40 – 41 17 54 – 55, 60 17:10 – 14 55 17:15 – 22 210 – 211 17:4 55

17:5 55 – 58, 60, 70 17:8 56 17:11 55 17:17 58 – 60 18 32, 40 18:1 – 8(11) 210 – 211, 292, 294 21 32, 56 21:1 – 21 40 21:(1)9 – 10 32 – 33, 40 – 41, 42 – 48, 90, 99 21:9 43 – 45 21:10 39, 42 – 46, 116 21:12 46 – 47 25:1 – 6, 9 41 26:2, 11 283 27:20 233 49:3 – 4 149 Exodus 4:1 295 4:10 269 13 – 17 99 13:21 74 14:22 74 16 185 16:2, 4 72, 74, 184 16:15 184 17 69 17:1 – 6 74 18:14 120 19 – 31 263 19:9 284 20 48 20:4 – 5 69 20:7 210 20:21 283 – 284 31:2 – 3 117 – 118 31:17, 18 80 – 83, 166 32 – 34 268 32 82, 299 32:6 64, 70 – 77, 90, 99 32:15 82 – 83

324

Index of Ancient Sources

32:17 282 33 – 34 275, 284 33 17, 28, 211, 263 – 265, 272, 280, 283 – 286, 297 – 298, 301 – 302 33:(1)7 – 11 28, 264, 275, 280 – 288, 294 33:12 – 23 28, 264, 284, 288 – 289, 292, 294, 297 33:7 119, 120, 278, 282 – 285 33:11 266, 273, 284, 286 33:12 292, 297, 301 33:13 288, 292, 294, 301 33:20 210 – 211, 301 33:22 297, 301 33:23 286, 292, 295, 297, 301 34:1 82 – 83, 251, 255 34:6, 8 284 34:10 81, 84 34:(27)29 – 35 3, 8 – 10, 12 – 15, 17, 26, 28, 78, 80 – 89, 91, 99, 124 – 127, 133, 157, 160, 182, 211, 235 – 236, 243, 250 – 251, 253 – 254, 258 – 264, 266, 269, 271 – 275, 277, 280, 282, 284, 286, 294 – 302 36:39 266 40:29, 35 85

26:62 74 30:17 215 – 216

Leviticus 10:1 – 5 283, 285 – 286 16 283, 286 16:1 – 14 120, 283, 285 – 286 18:6 119 – 120, 126 – 127 25:9 – 13 150, 154 – 155

1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 10:22 – 23 123

Numbers 6 127, 236 6:2 – 12 126 – 128, 233 – 236 11:4 65, 69, 74, 95 11:17 118, 157 12:1 – 8 236, 238, 279 – 280 14:16, 30 73 – 74 14:36 – 37 65, 74 – 75, 95 14:44 120, 158 16:(1)11 – 35 74, 95, 203 20:7 – 11 73 21:4 – 9 65, 74, 95 21:18 215 24:17 216 25:1 – 9 65, 74, 95

3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 17:1, 7 – 24 182 18:1 182

Deuteronomy 1:43 – 45 233 5:12 217 5:31 120, 158 6:10 – 11 233 6:6 82 6:16 74 8:3 73 15:1 – 12 150, 154 – 155, 159 18:15 – 19 177, 264, 269 25:4 93 27:26 93 29:3 94 30:15 – 16 267 – 268, 287 31:19 – 29 76 32:4 – 37 59, 72, 75 – 77, 94 – 95, 158, 266 Judges 13:2 – 25 206 14:1 – 20 206 – 207 16:17 206

2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel) *2:14 43 7:1 – 13 279

4 Kingdoms (2 Kings) 5:1 – 19 182 *24:18 – 20 155 1 Chronicles 1:28 41 2 Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah) 9:15, 20 73 19 – 20 77 19:6 – 37 95

Index of Ancient Sources

Job 5:12 93 Psalms 5:10 93 *7:8 – 9 151, 159 10:7 93 14:1 – 3 93 15:8 – 11 163, 170 – 178 17:50 94 31:1 – 2 49, 53 – 55, 62 35:2 93 43:23 94 50:6 93 68:10 94 68:26 169 77 72, 75, 77 77:3 – 41 69, 72 – 75, 77, 90, 95, 183 – 185 *82:1 – 2 151, 159 93:11 93 94:7 – 11 163 – 167, 225, 236 – 238 104:39 – 41 72, 73, 95 105:7 – 39 74, 77, 90, 95 108:8 169 109:1 170 – 173, 175 – 177 111:9 93 113:8 73 115:1 93 117:16 172, 174 139:4 93 151:5 73 Proverbs 1:16 93 25:21 94 Ecclesiastes 7:20 93 7:26 210 10:8 210 Isaiah 2:3 161 *7:17 215 – 216 *8:11 159 9:1 294 11:2 161, 207, 210 – 211

325

*24:17 214, 240, 242 – 243, 245 25:8 93 28:11, 16 93 – 94 29:10, 14 93 – 94 45:23 94 48:13 200, 210 48:21 73 49:18 94 52:5 93 *52:7 94, 151 – 153, 159 52:15 94 54:1 33 – 34, 37 – 38, 40, 45, 93 54:13 186, 188 *54:16 215 58:6 180 *58:13 – 14 217 – 218 59:7, 20 93 – 94 *61:1 – 2 149, 152 – 156, 159, 180 – 182, 217 Jeremiah 9:23 93 14:10, 12 73 36:21 – 23 161 *34:8 – 22 15, 154 – 156, 269 – 270 38:31 – 34 80, 82, 238, 250 – 251, 269 – 270, 297 Ezekiel *9:4 217 11:19 80, 82, 238, 299 36:26 80, 82, 238 *44:15 213, 215 Daniel 1:1 – 2 161 2 146 4 146 5 146 *9:25 152 – 153, 159 Hosea *5:10 217 *6:6 297 13:14 93 Joel 1:14 210

326

Index of Ancient Sources

3:1 – 5 170 – 171

5:1, 3

Amos *5:26 – 27 215 – 216 *9:11 216

Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 – 26 294 9:15 257 10:7 72 10:17 – 11:15 73, 77, 95 13 – 15 17, 48, 107 16:2 73 18:25 74 19:7 – 8, 12 72 – 73

Jonah 1:3 – 15 200 – 204 2:2 200 3:4 200 4:1 – 3, 5 – 6 200 Nahum 2:1 2:1 Habakkuk 2:7 93 11:28 74

86

Sirach (Ben Sira) 34:19 73 44:19 – 23 56 4 Esdras 9:37 262

Zechariah *5:5 – 11 161 6:12 277 *11:11 216 *13:7 216

2 Maccabees 7:10 44

Malachi 1:2 94

Susanna 63 161

4 Maccabees General 161 – 162, 196, 206

New Testament Matthew 2:6 86 4:23 183 5:22 – 44 88 6:13 71 6:19 – 7:12 242 6:26, 30 81 10:18 194 13:18 – 39 152 27:29 44 Mark 1:21 182 – 183 6:31 – 54 183 8:11 – 33 183 10:34 44

15:20 44 Luke 1:1 – 4 169, 175 1:19, 26 198 3:23 181 4:14 – 32 179 – 182, 184, 195, 250 9:31 – 32 275 – 276 12:24, 28 81 13:32 25 22:19 – 20 194 22:63 44 23:36 44 24:27 54 24:44 54, 173

Index of Ancient Sources

John 3:25 4 3:30, 36, 40 186 6 15, 179, 181, 183 – 185, 189 – 190, 195 6:22, 25 183 6:30 – 31 53, 179, 185, 187, 189 6:31 – 58 179, 182 – 195 13:15 163 13:16 – 41 167 13:27 250 13:34 – 37 172, 177 15:23 – 29 78, 219 17:18 – 28 181, 261 18:4 255 18:12 109 18:24 – 19:1 255, 260, 296 21:40 108 22:3 16, 108, 261 23:29 4 25:19 – 20 4 26:28 11 Acts of the Apostles 1:15 – 26 54, 169 2:17 – 24 54, 170 – 171 2:24 – 36 163, 168, 170 – 178, 201 3:12 – 26 168 4:25 54 7:1 – 53 168 – 169 11:26 11 13:15 – 41 163, 167 – 169, 177, 250 15:23 – 29 78, 219 17:18 261 17:23 – 28 181 18:4 255 18:12 109 18:24 – 27 255, 260, 296 19:1 255 21:40 108 22:3 16, 108, 261 23:29 4 25:19 – 20 4 26:28 11 Romans 1 – 4 48 1:12 242, 255

327

1:14 16, 261 1:17 93 1:18 – 2:11 17, 48, 107, 257 2:1, 3 52 – 53 2:17 – 5:11 25, 50, 53 2:24 93 2:26 53 3 48 3:1 – 15 255 3:4 93 3:10 40, 93 3:21 – 31 51 – 52, 54 – 55 3:27 – 31 (4:2) 49 – 50, 53, 61, 80 4:(1)3 – 25 26, 31, 34, 39, 42, 49 – 62, 64, 70 – 72, 80 – 81, 84, 88, 90 – 91, 93, 99, 128, 149, 195 5 – 8 48, 50 5:1 – 11 50, 253 5:9, 10 81 5:14 64, 269 5:15, 17 81 7 48 7:7 71 8:6 244 8:36 94 9 – 11 24, 32, 48 9:4 32 9:7 40 9:13 94 9:15 64 9:24 – 33 25, 151 9:33 40, 94 10:5 – 19 64, 88, 94 10:18 – 21 151 11:8 40, 94 11:26 40, 94 12 – 15 48 12:19 40, 94 13:9 71 14:11 94 15:3, 4, 9, 21 94 16:20 48, 107 1 Corinthians 1:2 255 1:19 93 1:26 276

328

Index of Ancient Sources

1:31 93 2:6 276 2:9 36, 93 2:10 299, 302 3:19 – 20 93 4:6 25, 93 8:1 – 8 65 – 66, 78 9:3 65 9:8 – 9 64, 93 9:10 52, 57 9:19 – 23 265 9:22 67 10:1 – 13 14, 26, 57 – 58, 63 – 78, 79, 81, 84, 90 – 94, 95 (table), 99, 182, 192, 195, 213 10:14 – 11:1 66, 70 – 71, 77 13:12 288 14:21 93 15 297, 299 15:1 – 4, 8 29 15:45 – 47 93, 244, 287 15:54 40, 93 16:19 255 2 Corinthians 1 – 9 268 1 – 7 272 1:1 211, 255 2:14 – 7:4 8, 63, 81, 224, 253, 256 2:14 – 4:6 17, 27, 83, 104, 163, 220, 234 – 236, 238 – 239, 249 – 250, 259, 262, 265, 267 – 270, 272, 296, 298, 301 3 – 5 299 3:1 – 6 8, 14, 24, 27, 31, 79 – 82, 133, 135, 146, 229, 231, 234 – 236, 238 – 239, 243, 250, 255, 259, 266 – 270, 295 – 296, 299 3:7 – 18 3, 5, 6 – 13, 15 – 17, 19 – 20, 26 – 27, 29, 31 – 32, 48, 63 – 64, 68, 78 – 89, 90 – 92, 94, 99 – 100, 104, 113, 120, 124 – 128, 133, 146 – 147, 149, 156 – 157, 160, 163, 178 – 179, 182, 189, 195, 199, 201, 204 – 205, 211, 213, 218, 223 – 224, 229 – 231, 234 – 240, 243, 245 – 246, 248 – 250, 252 – 254, 256 – 259, 262, 264 – 278, 280 – 282, 284 – 289, 294 – 300, 302 – 303

4:1 – 6 8, 10, 79, 81 – 82, 86, 229, 231, 235 – 236, 239, 243 – 244, 245 – 246, 250, 256, 264, 266, 268 – 270, 275 – 276, 294, 298 – 299 4:7 – 15 79, 81, 84, 93 4:16 – 5:10 17 5:1 – 10 257, 287 6:14 – 7:1 108 6:15 245 7:4 271 8 – 9 63 8:15 93 9:9 93 10 – 13 108, 270 12:1 – 10 29, 64, 295 Galatians 1:2 255 1:12 257 1:13 11 1:14 16, 108 1:15 – 24 261 1:16 29 2:2 29 2:4 43 2:7 – 8 255 2:11 – 21 252 3:1 – 4:30 33 3:6 – 4:7 26, 34, 39, 47 – 48, 128, 199, 209 3:8 47 – 48 3:10, 13 93 3:16 3 4:19 37 4:20 30 4:21 – 5:1 5, 19, 26, 31 – 48, 50 – 53, 58, 64, 68, 79, 81, 85, 87 – 88, 90 – 93, 99, 107, 116, 149, 186, 190, 209 5:13 43 Ephesians 2:15 266, 303 3:12 271 Philippians 1:20 271 1:21 – 26 249 2:9 – 11 172

Index of Ancient Sources

3 302 3:4 – 6 16 3:5 4, 107 – 109 3:8 24 3:13 – 14 298, 301 4:4 v Colossians 1:15 86, 294 2:15 271 1 Thessalonians 2:2 271 4:9 186 5:27 196 1 Timothy 1:4 4 3:13 271 6:4 4 2 Timothy 2:23 4 3:12 194 3:16 58 Titus 3:9 4

Philemon 8 271 Hebrews 1:1 – 2:18 237 1:5 – 14 151 2:12 – 13 151 2:17 279 3:1 – 6 230, 236 – 239, 267, 278 – 280 3:7 – 4:11 26, 163, 164 – 167, 170 – 171, 174 – 75, 178 – 179, 184 – 185, 192, 195, 199, 201, 225 (table), 230, 236 – 240, 243 4:14 – 16 237, 239, 243, 278 6:20 – 7:28 26 8:7 – 13 267 10:19 – 22 275, 277 – 278 13:18 – 25 163, 196 1 Peter 4:16 11 2 Peter 1:17 – 18 275 3:16 26 1 John 1:3 194

Early Jewish Literature 2 Enoch General 260, 263 Qumran Literature 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) Col. 2 149 – 156, 159 (table), 269 Damascus Document CD-A 1 – 8 213 1.5 – 6 269 2.2 – 2.13 241, 269 2.17 – 3.12 213, 215 3.13 269 3.21 – 4.4 213 – 215

329

4.12 – 5.19 214 – 215, 240 – 245 5.20 – 6.15 68, 215, 240 – 242 6.19 269 7.6 – 21 215 – 217 10.16 – 11.2 217 – 218 19 – 20 213 CD-B 19.2 – 11

216

Josephus Antiquities 1.215 43

330

Index of Ancient Sources

Contra Apionem 1.38 – 40 54

17 87 205 290

Philo of Alexandria Abr. 62 – 88 121 – 123, 158 (table) 119 – 123 291 – 294

Hypoth. 8.7.13 160

Conf. 62 277 Cong. 1 43 14, 23 42 Decal. 19, 51 69 Det. 115 – 118 77 160 120, 282 – 283 Deus 86 233, 235 87 – 90 126 – 128, 137, 233 – 236, 238 – 239 91 – 103 236, 238 144 86 Ebr. 100 120, 282 Fug. 1 200 39 200 42, 48 200 53 200 133 118 Gig. 19 – 57 115 – 120, 126 – 127, 157 – 158 (table), 216, 281 32 – 47 119 (table), 126 – 127, 216 53 – 54 281 – 285, 286 – 287 Her. 1 – 21 273 – 277 14 – 15 89

Leg. 1.31 276 1.37 118 1.84 vii 2.53 – 58 120, 282 – 284, 285 – 287, 288 2.84 77 2.86 68 3.46 – 48 120, 282, 284 3.96 276, 290, 292 3.97 – 99 289 3.100 – 101 258, 288 – 295, 297, 301 3.116 69 3.162 – 168 196 3.175 290 3.212 86 3.245 46 3.251 116 Migr. 103 294 176 – 177 121 – 123 178 – 186 123 188 – 197 121, 123 – 124 Mos. 1.66 276 2.2 – 3 280 2.68 – 70 16, 85, 126, 262 – 263, 280 Mut. 7 – 17 289, 292, 294 – 295, 297, 301 81 86 154 – 201 59 – 60 177 – 188 59 – 60 253 – 263 196 Opif. 69 294 76 86 134 86 139 276

Index of Ancient Sources

Post. 92 86 167 – 169 292

26b–39 200, 210 – 211 40 – 53 200, 206, 209 – 211 106 198

Praem. 36 – 46 291 79 – 172 277 158 – 159 38

De Jona Fragment Fr. 201 – 203, 204 – 206, 209 – 211

Q.G. 1.90 115 – 120 1.91 121 Sobr. 8 44 Somn. 2.45 – 46 293 Spec. 1.1 69 1.195 vii 1.219 288 1.270 16 4.84 69 4.126 69 Ps.-Philo De Jona 1 – 3 200 4 – 15 200 – 201, 203 – 204, 210 16 – 26a 200

De Sampsone 1 – 4 206, 208, 210 5 – 20 206, 208 – 211 21 – 46 204, 206 – 211 LAB 12.1 – 13.1 262 – 263 Rabbinic Literature Debarim Rabbah 11.3 262 Genesis Rabbah 53:11 43 m.Ta‘anith 2.1 210 Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 20.1 38 Targum Ps.-Jonathan Gen 22:1 43 t.Sot ̣a 6:6 43

Classical Literature Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary (K) General 134 – 144 2.52 – 3.25 136, 138 – 144 12.21 135 14.42 – 15.33 136, 138 – 143 34.9 – 35.44 136 56.11 – 31 136 – 140, 234, 140

Claudius (Caesar) Letter to the Alexandrians CPJ 153 109

Cicero Frg. Inc. K10 221 Timaeus 221 – 222

(Ps.‐)Demosthenes 4 Philip. 34 – 70 232

Demosthenes De corona 88 190

331

332

Index of Ancient Sources

Didymus In Demonsthenem commenta 104, 232 Epistles of Paul and Seneca 6 219 Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.4.568 261 Plato Meno 81c5 – 82a 137 – 138 87b7–c1 136 – 140 97d1 – 98a12 136 – 144 Phaedo 114d 249 Phaedrus 264b–c 229 274c–278b 267 275d–276a 82 Theaetetus 142a–153e 135 – 138 157e–158a 135 166e2 137 178b6–c1 142

190b2 137 209c8 137 Timaeus 20a2 221 27d6 221 – 222, 246 29c3 221 35a2 221 37a5, e5 221 Quintilian Inst. 8.3.33 222 Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.26.35 50 Seneca Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 58.1 – 7 220 – 222, 246 – 247 58.8 – 24 221, 222 – 223, 246 – 248 58.25 – 37 246 – 248, 249 Strabo Geogr. 14.5.12 – 15 261 Thucydides Hist. 1.22.1 169

Early Christian Literature Apocryphon of John 18.14 – 29 69 Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 6:8 – 19 26 11:6 – 11 26 12:5 – 7 26 13 26 Martyrdom of Polycarp 10:1 11

Athanasius De Incarnatione 40 275 Gregory of Nyssa De Vita Moysis Prologue 298 2.214 – 255 296 – 302 2.319 298 Ignatius of Antioch Rom 3:3 11

Index of Modern Authors Aizpurua, Paul 219 Adams, E. 252 Albertini, Eugène 219 Amir, Yehoshua 111 Anderson, Gary A. 15 Anderson, Paul N. 184 Anisfeld, Rachel 162 Attridge, Harold A. 3, 7, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 192, 196, 236, 237, 239, 268, 271, 275, 276, 278, 279 Aucher, Johann Baptist 196, 197, 199, 202, 203, 208 Aune, David E. 5, 17, 108, 257 Aus, Roger D. 268 Avemarie, Friedrich 42 Bachman, Michael 33 Back, Frances 288 Bal, Mieke 45, 46 Barlow, Claude W. 219 Barrett, Charles Kingsley 32, 44, 66, 92, 173, 174, 176, 177 Bartos, Michael 151, 154, 155 Bassler, Jouette M. 22 Bastianini, Guido 134, 138, 141, 142 Bates, Matthew W. 20, 22 Baur, Ferdinand Christian 252, 253 Becker, Jürgen 32, 92 Beker, Johan C. 21, 22, 48 Belleville, Linda 8, 12, 15, 16, 83 Bergsma, John S. 154 Berlin, Isaiah 24 Bernstein, Moshe J. 212 Betz, Hans Dieter 5, 6, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 63, 108, 219, 249, 261, 269 Betz, Otto 8, 25 Birnbaum, Ellen 86, 109 Black, C. Clifton 163 Blanton, Thomas R. 212 Bloch, René 5 Borgen, Peder 46, 67, 110, 112, 125, 128, 183, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192 Bousset, Wilhelm 110

Bowersock, Glen W. 253 Bowie, Ewen 253, 260, 261 Bowker, J. W. 167, 168, 169, 171 Boyarin, Daniel 3, 4, 20, 249 Brittain, Charles 134, 140 Brooke, George J. 19, 147, 148, 153, 154, 212, 213, 217, 269 Brown, Raymond 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 Bultmann, Rudolf 11, 35, 49, 79, 80, 85, 87, 108, 192, 194, 253, 265, 272, 289 Burns, Joshua E. 5 Burnyeat, Miles 134 Burton, Ernest De Witt 35 Campbell, Jonathan G. 146, 147, 148, 153, 213, 214, 240, 241, 242 Cancik, Hildegard 100, 219 Carminac, Jean 147 Carter, David M. 278 Casey, T. G. 4 Cazeaux, Jacques 110, 111, 231 Charlesworth, James 242 Childs, Brevard S. 20, 251, 262, 263, 265, 267, 271, 275 Cohen, Naomi 149, 250 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 11 Collange, J.-F. 81 Collins, John J. 161, 198, 212, 213, 214, 215, 241 Colson, F. C. 110, 114, 122, 273 Conzelmann, Hans 68 Costa, Charles D. N. 219, Cover, Michael B. 30, 32, 86, 89, 107, 109, 272, 277, 289, 291 Dahl, Nils A. 23 Davies, Philip R. 240, 241, 242 Davies, William D. 3, 4 Dawson, David 5 Deissmann, Adolf 218 Diels, Hermann 134, 138, 140, 141 Dillon, John 18, 112 Dochhorn, Jan 30, 107

334

Index of Modern Authors

Dodd, Charles H. 20 Dodds, E. R. 110 Doering, Luz 218 Donfried, Karl Paul 162 Duff, Paul B. 252 Dunn, James D. G. 3, 4, 8, 12, 15, 16, 146, 244, 257 Eastman, Susan 37 Ellis, E. Earle 13, 52, 92, 146, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 177 Engberg-Pederson, Troels 17, 63, 257, 264, 276 Evans, Craig A. 12, 54, 106, 107, 146, 147, 177, 178 Fassberg, Steven E. 108 Fine, Steve 250 Fishbane, Michael 213, 217 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 7, 9, 66, 67, 68, 83, 92, 106, 146, 162, 168, 169, 172, 174, 177 Foucault, Michel 272 Fraade, Steven 4, 5, 128, 129, 130, 131, 145, 146, 147, 148 Franklin, Eric 176 Freudenthal, Jacob 198, 206 Friedrich, G. 7, 32 Furnish, Victor Paul 8, 11, 12, 15, 29, 63, 79, 85, 252, 254, 262, 268, 272, 288 Gabbay, Uri 101, 102, 145, 160 García-Martínez, F. 42, 150 Garroway, Joshua D. 11 Gebhard, Elizabeth R. 65 Gelardini, Gabriella 163, 164, 166, 250 Georgi, Dieter 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 64, 84, 92, 229, 253, 254, 256, 259, 262 Geljon, Albert C. 105, 114, 118, 121, 297 Gibson, Roy K. 19, 100 Goodenough, Erwin R. 110, 262 Goulder, Michael D. 252 Goulet, R. 110, 111 Grabbe, Lester L. 86, 122 Grafe, Eduard 107 Grant, Robert M. 20, 21 Greenfield, J. C. 242 Grimm, Werner 25

Haase, Friedrich 219 Hadot, I. 18 Haenchen, Ernst 172 Hafemann, Scott 8, 11, 12, 32, 107, 251, 268, 269, 295 Hammerton-Kelly, R. G. 111 Haran, Menahem 121, 122, 123, 275 Hay, David M. 22, 55, 110 Hays, Richard B. 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 26, 32, 33, 38, 39, 47, 49, 51, 53, 64, 66, 72, 75, 76, 264, 265, 267, 271 Heath, Malcom 27, 229 Hecht, Richard D. 277 Heinemann, Joseph 4, 162 Hempel, Charlotte 213, 215, 217, 240, 241 Hengel, Martin 8, 16, 107, 108, 145, 198, 261 Hilgert, Earl A. 111 Hirshman, Marc 110 Hoffmann, P. 18 Holtz, Gudrun 106, 125, 133 Horgan, Maura P. 145, 146, 147, 148 Horrell, D. 252 Horsley, G. H. R. 169 Horsley, Richard A. 17, 108, 254 Inwood, Brad 220, 221, 222, 247 Johnson, E. Elizabeth 22 Jeremias, Joachim 13 Jeske, R. L. 66 Jewett, Robert 50, 53 Jones, Christopher Prestige 253 Juno, É. 162 Kamesar, Adam 18, 58, 105, 111 Katz, Peter 107 Kennedy, George A. 169 Ker, James 219 Klauck, Hans-Josef 85 Klein, Michael 86 Knibb, Michael A. 214 Knox, John 21, 261 Kobelski, Paul J. 147, 150, 153 Kobler, Franz. 219 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 8, 10, 11, 20, 48, 80, 87, 270

Index of Modern Authors

Koester, Helmut 162 Konstan, David 18 Kugel, James 4, 5 Kraus, Christina S. 18, 19, 100 Lambrecht, Jan 83 Lamedica, A. 103 Langer, Ruth 250 Levenson, Jon D. 3 Levine, Lee 16, 250 Levinson, Bernard M. 151, 154, 155 Levison, John R. 13, 118 Lévy, Carlos 134 Lewy, Hans 196, 197, 199 Liebermann, Saul 41 Lienhard, J. T. 162 Lietzmann, Hans 7, 9, 85, 92, 162, 289 Lim, Timothy H. 4, 106, 146, 147, 149 Lincicum, David 76 Lindars, Barnabas 174, Linebaugh, Jonathan A. 17, 107, 257, 276 Litwa, M. David 64, 270, 271, 289, 291, 294, 295 Long, Anthony 134 Long, Fredrick J. 63 Lüdemann, Gerd 21 Ludlow, Morwenna 297 Luz, Ulrich 22, 92 Mackie, Scott 86, 292 Malherbe, Abraham J. 35, 49, 268, 298, 300 Martin, Dale B. 254 Martin, Ralph P. 9, 79, 85, 252 Martyn, J. Louis 32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 42, 64 Mason, Steve 11 Masson, Robert 23 Matera, Frank J. 63 Mazzarelli, Claudio 231 McGinn, Bernard. 291 McL. Wilson, Robert 253 McNamara, Martin 13, 262, 275 Meeks, Wayne 21, 25, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 90, 92, 262, 265 Meier, John P. 110, 129, 178, 297 Michel, Otto 7, 13, 51, 52, 92 Milik, J. T. 148 Miller, M. P. 154

335

Mitchell, Margaret M. 3, 20, 22, 30, 58, 63, 69, 70, 270, 297, 302 Montanari, Franco 100 Morris, Jenny 111 Moule, C. D. F. 7, 9 Moxnes, Halvor 46, 52, 56, 92 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 10, 21, 108, 109, 211 Nautin, Pierre 162 Niehoff, Maren 18, 87, 109, 110, 112, 113, 208, 210, 256 Nikiprowetzky, Valentin 100, 231, 232, 233 Novenson, Matthew V. 11 Novick, M. Tzvi. 47, 91, 169, 250, 268 Ofer, Yosef 250 Opsomer, Jan 134 Palagi, Laura Bocciolini 219 Pearson, Birger A. 17, 254 Pervo, Richard I. 171, 174, 177 Plunkett-Dowling, Regina 268 Rabbinovitz, Zvi M. 251 Rabens, Volker 13, 118, 271, 289 Radice, Roberto 231 Räisänen, Heikki 70 Rese, Martin 168, 172, 177 Reydams-Schils, Gretchen 247 Richard, Earl 8, 12 Richardson, Peter 7, 9 Rosén, Haiim B. 57 Rothschild, Clare 164, 169, 196 Royse, James 105, 107, 111, 112, 197 Runia, David T. 18, 55, 105, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 135, 136, 137, 141, 158, 231, 232, 233 Russell, Donald A. 18, 219 Saito, Tadashi 7 Sampley, J. Paul 272 Sandelin, Karl-Gustav 67, 72, 75, 77 Sanders, E. P. 3, 4 Sanders, James A. 12, 54, 106, 107, 146 Schellenberg, Ryan S. 108, 261 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 214

336

Index of Modern Authors

Schironi, Francesca 102, 103, 104, 134, 157, 160, 223, 232 Schlier, Heinrich 34, 35, 40, 43 Schmithals, Walter 253 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 185, 194, 195 Schnelle, Udo 23, 274 Schrage, Wolfgang 65, 66, 68, 69 Schröter, Jens 14, 79, 169 Schubart, Wilhelm 134, 138, 140, 141 Schulz, Siegfried 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 Schürmann, Heinz 194 Schweitzer, Albert 3, 4 Sedley, David 134, 138, 141, 142 Seitz, Christopher R. 20 Sellin, Gerhard 17, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 44, 63, 92, 108, 254 Semler, Johann S. 63 Siegert, Folker 161, 162, 163, 164, 179, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 Slomovic, Eliezar 217 Smallwood, E. Mary 109 Soards, Marion L. 169, 173 Speiser, Ephraim A. 55 Stanley, Christopher D. 23, 30, 92 Sterling, Gregory E. 3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 89, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 125, 147, 169, 184, 198, 254, 256, 271, 274, 276 Steyn, Gert J. 164, 165, 166 Stockhausen, Carol K. 8, 12, 146 Stowers, Stanley 35, 49, 50, 108, 218 Strachan, Lionel 218 Striker, Giesela 134 Svebakken, Hans 71 Swancutt, Diana 72, 75 Tarrant, Harold 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 219, 220, 221, 222 Tatum, Gregory 21, 63, 109 Taylor, J. 4 Terrian, Abraham 112 Theobald, Michael 7

Thiessen, Matthew 32 Thiselton, Anthony C. 63 Thrall, Margaret E. 63 Thyen, Hartwig 161, 162 Tobin, Thomas 110, 111 Tönges, Elke 164 Van der Minde, Hans-Jürgen 52, 92 Van Henten, J. W. 161 Vanhoye, Albert 165 Van Kooten, George H. 8, 10, 13, 14, 64, 84, 92, 229, 253, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 271, 276 Van Unnik, W. C. 12, 106 Vogt, Herman J. 162 Wachholder, Ben Zion 168 Wagner, J. Ross 23, 24, 29, 30, 48, 92 Wan, Sze-kar 112, 184 Watson, Francis 22 Weiss, Johannes 5 Wesselius, J. W. 161 Whitmarsh, Tim 253 Willi-Plein, Ina 164 Williams, Rowan 290, 291, 300 Wills, Lawrence 161, 162, 163 Wilson, Walter T. 242 Windisch, Hans 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 26, 31, 34, 48, 66, 78, 79, 80, 85, 89, 90, 99, 229, 235, 259, 262, 281 Winston, David 18, 112, 291 Winter, Bruce W. 10, 229, 253, 260, 262 Wolfson, Harry A. 110 Wolter, Michael 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 42 Wright, Addison G. 128 Wright, Nicholas T. 3, 4, 11, 12, 21, 32, 50, 107, 109, 129, 131 Yadin, Azzan 36, 46, 57 Young, Frances M. 5 Zeller, Dieter 17

Index of Subjects 2 Cor 3:7 – 18 as commentary, 83n121, 239 as excursus, 7n13, 81 – 89, 224, 229n3, 230, 250 – 256, 268 as “literary insertion,” 8 – 10, 229 – 230 as integral to Paul’s apology, 11 – 13 epistolary framing of, 27, 213, 230 – 249 Abraham contrast with Manoah, 210 faith of, 49 – 62, 198n102 doubt of, 59 as sage, 123, 293 three-fold vision of God, 292 – 293 Acts of the Apostles homilies/speeches in, 163, 167 – 181 Alexandria embassy to Gaius, 109, 113 exegetical traditions, 17, 258 – 259, 266 Jewish community, 130, 184n68, 160, 198, 257, 261 text-critical scholarship, 18, 100, 208 Allegorical Commentary as sui generis, 105, 125, 133 “chapter” in, 117 – 121, 157 – 158, 231 – 236 middle treatises, 114, 126, 281 stylistic unevenness in, 113 – 115 use of homiletic sources, 196 allegory/allegoresis in Gregory of Nyssa, 297 – 300 of OT texts, 77, 123, 233 – 236 Pauline, 5 – 6, 14, 19 – 20, 32n10, 35 – 48, 107n24, 266 Philonic, 19, 77, 123, 131, 145, 233, 282, 286 amplification, 56 – 57, 133, 200, 204, Chapter 5 (passim), 283 ἀνάμνησις (see “Plato, theory of recollection”) Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary “chapter” in, 137 Meno as secondary lemma in, 136 – 144

apocalypticism, vii, 4, 21 – 22, 32n10, 86n129, 106 – 109, 242, 246, 264, 268n27, 270 Apollos in Corinth, 10n24, 63, 255, 260n5, 296, 300 parrhesia of, 296 apology/apologetic works in 1 Corinthians, 65 in 2 Corinthians, 7, 10, 27, 63n77, 79 – 80, 82, 213, 229 – 230, 234 – 239, 244 – 245, 252, 255, 260n6, 262 – 266 in Hellenistic Judaism, 10, 130, 254 historiography, 195 in Alexandrian homilies, 200n106 in Philo (see “Philo”) at Qumran, 245 ἀπορήματα καὶ λύσεις, 210 Belial/r in D, 214 – 15, 240 – 245 in 2 Corinthians, 245 bilingualism as stimulus for commentary, 101 – 102 canonical criticism, 20, 54n68, 264n16, 265n18, 299 catchword bonding, 83, 165, 171, 194 catena of texts, 25n70, 34, 37, 40n35, 77, 93 – 94, 120, 125, 133, 148 – 151, 181n61, 200n108, 216 – 217, 232 – 233, 283 Cephas in Corinth, 252 – 255 Christianity and Judaism comparing, viii, 11 – 12, 17, 89n133 homilies in, 161 – 163 terminology, 11n28 commentary ἀλλά in, 36, 87 Allegorical Commentary (see “Allegorical Commentary”) anthological character, 88, 129n83, 256n58

338

Index of Subjects

excursus in, 121, 231 – 236, 249, distinction from homily, 161 – 163, esp. 162n4 and n5. as a function, 51 – 52, 104 – 105, 132, 157, 160, 163, 223, 249 mukallimtu, 101 multiple interpretations of a verse, 87, 99, 120, 199, 207 in narrative, 128 – 131 nominalization of verbs in, 81n116, 84 in non-commentary lit., 19, 27, 157, 163, 179, 212, 218, 240 – 243, 249 paraphrase in, 33 – 48, 53 – 59, 63, 68, 81 – 89, 93, 99, 113 – 115, 121 – 124, 137 – 144, 149, 158, 183 – 191, 199 – 205, 266 as polemical tool, 134n92 σύγγραμμα, 6, 104 – 105, 131, 232 sât ̣u, 101 – 102 ὑπόμνημα, 6, 100, 104 – 105, 124, 131 – 132, 157, 232 commentary tradition, 16 – 19, 100 – 104 Essene, 105, 145 – 157, 212 – 218, 239 – 240 Mesopotamian, 100 – 103 Greek, 102 – 103, 111, 223 Hebrew, 105, 148, 242 Hellenistic, 18 – 19, 29 – 31, 100 – 106, 141 Latin, 100 – 102, 218 – 223, 246 – 248 Palestinian, 4, 7n13, 13, 16n43, 22, 106n20, 164n10, 198, 146, 250, 262n12, 275n51 Pergamean, 104 philosophical, 18n46, 100, 105, 117, 145, 234 Platonic, 15n42, 18, 100 – 105, 134 – 144, 218 – 223, 242 – 248 Platonizing Jewish, 13, 15n42, 16, 100, 256, 259, 295 pre-composed, 10, 52, 60, 91 – 93, 196, 242 rabbinic, 36, 128 – 132, 145, 161n3, 167 – 171, 184n67, 268, 275n51 contextualizing lemma, 49, 62 distinct from secondary lemma, 55

Corinthian correspondence apostolic rivalry, 7, 27 – 28, 81, 235, 254 – 255 birthplace of Christian hermeneutics, 302 co-authorship of, 211n134 Moses in, 64, 195, 266, 295 “midraschartige Stücke” in, 63, 67 other ministers, 10n24, 27, 235, 252 – 256, 260, 296, 300 partition theories, 63n77 Paul’s opponents in, 251 – 256 Paul’s Platonizing thought in, 13, 108, 259 – 262, 270 pneumatics, 10, 255n71 covenant old, 79 – 85, 234 – 238, 248, 266 – 267 renewal of, 15n40, 27, 31 – 32n7, 79 – 85, 212 – 214, 234 – 238, 250 – 257, 264 – 269, 274, 294 – 296 two, 37, 85 with Abraham, 32n7, 55 with Melchizedek, 155, 269 with Moses, 79 – 85, 127, 234 – 238, 264n17, 266 – 269, 274, 296 – 298 with Zedekiah, 155, 269 Damascus Document genre of, 239 – 240n26 new covenant in (see also “covenant, renewal of,”) 212 – 213 De Jona as ancient science fiction, 206 as previously prepared, 199 – 201 authorship, 197 Day of Atonement as occasion, 200 – 201 φιλανθρωπία as key theme, 200 whale as natural submarine, 206 De Jona Fragment as formal homily, 204 De Sampsone as improvised, 205 authorship, 197 school commentary in, 206 – 210 dialectical negation, 297n86

Index of Subjects

diasporization of Paul’s thought, 25, 257n61 diatribe 4 Maccabees and 2 Clement as, 162n3, 196 in De Jona, 209 in Galatians, 35 – 36 in Romans, 48 – 53, 61 digressive aesthetics/poetics, 133, 144, 223 – 224, Chapter 5 passim, esp. 230 – 249, 259, 269 δόξα (see “glory”) education gymnasium, 108 in private houses, 108 Paul’s, (see “Paul”) Philo’s (see “Philo”) Seneca’s, 223 ἐπέκτασις, 301 epistles (see “letters”) epistolary exegesis in Paul, 6, 19, 63, 157, 160 – 161, 218 – 223, Chapter 5 passim, esp. 244 Essenes, 4, 29, 101 – 109, 132, 145 – 149, 154 – 157, 160, 213 – 215, 239 – 246, 269 – 270 etymology in commentary, 86, 122n74, 123 in onomastica (see separate entry) exegesis, 128 as a generic placeholder, 6 “atomizing,” 78, 213 circular, 82 – 83, 164n12, 166, 175 – 176, 184, 194 – 195 deictic, 146, 152, 210, 214 – 15 dialogical, 145 relation to hermeneutics, 10, 13n32, 15, 19, 19 – 26, 29 – 30n5, 87n130 explicit controls, 25, 30 – 31 implicit controls, 30 – 31 negation as, 86, esp. n129, patterns of, 15, 61, 91, 124, 213, 232, 256 primary level, 131 – 133, 156, 205 secondary level, 19, 27, 131 – 133, 135, 141, 144, 148 – 149, 157, Chapter 4 pas-

339

sim, 230, 236 – 239, 245 – 46, 249 – 250, 258, 280, 284 sequential, 3n2, 12, 15 – 16, 25n70, 26, 31, 39, 58, 61 – 62, 72, 77 – 80, 83, 88 – 90, Chapters 3 and 4 passim, esp. 207, 232n11, 234 – 235, 243, 265n20 exegetical traditions, 15n42, 91 – 92 creation/Adam, 244n36, 260n6, 262n12, 264, 269, 283 – 287 Abraham cycle, 42 – 44, 58 – 60, 121 – 134 wilderness narrative, 14, 67 – 78, 91,122 – 124 166 – 167, 185 – 187, 237 – 239 Moses-Sinai, 14, 15n40, 37, 64n79, 71, 224, 251n44, 258, 262 – 265, 268, 284, 299 Moses-Tabernacle, 17, 118, 124, 224, 258, Chapter 6 passim, esp. 272 – 286, 294 – 295, 301 exemplarity Adamic, 287, 299 Abrahamic, 50, 59, 63, 121 – 124, 131n87, 292 – 295 Israelites and, 65 – 72, 85 – 88, 127, 157, 213, 241 – 145, 266 – 268, 274, 300, 303 Mosaic, 89, 118, 248 – 249, 256, Chapter 6 passim Platonic, 248 – 249 Samson, 200n106 exemplum Abraham as, 49 – 55, 60 – 61, 80 Elijah and Elisha as, 182 high priest as, 158 Jews as, 300 Moses as, 118 – 120, 281 negative, 215 positive, 286 Sarah as, 60 exhortation (see paraenesis) Exodus Chapter 33 in Jewish exegesis, 17, 28, 211, 263 – 265 Chapter 34, relatively infrequent use, 17, 28, 262 – 233 Exposition of the Law, 30, 111 – 115, 121 – 124, 182, 199, 201, 280

340

Index of Subjects

Abraham in, 121 – 124, 292 apologetic element in, 130 as exoteric, 113, 130 exegetical pattern of, 121 – 124 intended audience, 111 – 113 paraphrase in, 199, 201 the patriarchs in, 131n87 ten commandments in, 71n101 finding in Platonic epistemology, 136 – 138, 233 – 235 focalizer (see “narratology”) formulae allegorical, 37 application, 57 – 58, 67, 71 citation, 25, 30, 35 – 40, 48, 52 – 60, 67 – 72, 79, 91 – 93, 99, 143, 149, 185, 200 – 208, 236 comparative, 266 in Corinthian correspondence, 64, 81 deictic, 210 diatribal, 53 Eucharistic, 66 narrative, 41 – 42 in pesharim, 149 – 154, 240 rhetorical, 234 – 235 Galatians covenants in, 32n7 Scripture personified in, 45 – 48 teachers, 43n37, 64, 300 Gallio, 109 glory, 28, 79 – 89, 127, 235 – 245, Chapter 6 passim God apocalyptic victory of, 21 essence unknowable, 291n79, 292 faithfulness of, 21, 59 God by God, 291n79 image of, 28, 239, 243 – 244, 287 – 295, 299 immutability of, 197n97 kingdom of, 178 as Melchizedek, 152 as mind of the universe, 122 Moses as, 262n12

of this age, 245 – 246 ὁ θεός, 290n76 Paul as, 45 – 48 φιλανθρωπία of, 200 powers of, 293 promise of, 55 – 56 righteousness of, 21, 155 – 156 as rock, 75 shadow of, 291 – 294 speaking with, 87 – 88 spirit of, 118, 167, 244, 299 – 302 testing of, 71 – 72 θεός, 290 third aspect of, 244n36 as three, 292 turning to, 275 vision of, 85 – 86, 245, 264 – 266, 272 – 296 Graphē (see “scripture, personification”) haft ̣arah, 149n127, 180, 250 – 251 halakhah in DSS, 30, 151, 214, 218 Hebrews as a generic hybrid, 196 as homily, 163 – 164 epistolary coda in, 238 – 239 exegetical amplification in, 236 – 238 priestly parrhesia in, 277 – 280 hermeneutics Christian, 3, 30n5, 58n73, 297n88, 302 circular, 102 deictic commentary, 146, 152, 210, 214 – 215 dialogical commentary, 145 Homer by Homer, 117, 135 Moses by Moses, 117, 135 ὠφέλεια (see “utility”) Pauline, vii, 3, 19 – 26, 47n51, 271n36 Plato by Plato, 135 of Rabbi Ishmael, 36, 46n48 removing proper name, 274, 285 homily in the Diasporan synagogue, 161 esp. n2 and n3, 163n9, 195 – 200, 205, 209 – 210 distinct from commentary, 162 – 163

Index of Subjects

impromptu composition of, 162, 196, 205 – 206 in the New Testament, 163 – 195 of Jesus, 179 – 195 λόγος παρακλήσεως, 6, 163 Paul’s reuse of, 7 – 10, 26n74, 64, 66n87, 69 – 77, 92, 259 in Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, 125 proem (see “petiḥot”) psalmic text, 176, 237 – 239 at Qumran, 148 school traditions in, 205 – 206 image of God (see “God”) intertextuality, 12 – 15, 30, 34, 45, 80 – 88, 154 – 155, 181n62, 250, 299 Jesus as anointed prophet, 180 – 182 as bread of life, 182 – 195 as high priest, 239 as holy of holies, 275, 278 as image of God, 243, 287, 294 – 295 as locus of glory, 275 – 276, 295 as Lord, 244 as messiah, 262, 277 as speaker of the Psalms, 176 ascension and resurrection, 170 – 176 halakhic teaching of, 129n83, 297 influence on Paul’s religion, 29 languages spoken, 108n26 preaching by (see “homily”) relationship to Moses, 236 – 237, 262, 274 rhetoric of his preaching, 81n117 John Bread of Life discourse, 182 – 195 ecclesial redactor, 192 Eucharistic coda, 183, 192 – 195 “I am” statements, 189, 191 Jonah flight of, 200 – 201 as judge, 201 as king, 206 as servant of the Lord, 201, 203 and self-offering/suicide, 201

341

kerygma, 20 – 21, 29, 128 – 130, 178, 182, 244 Latin language, neologisms, 221 philosophical limitations, 221 law in D, 213n138 Decalogue as headings of, 69n96, 78n112 distinct from “scripture,” 46n48 division of Tanakh, 48n52, 54 Exposition of the (see “Exposition of the Law”) and faith, 56 in Galatians, 31 – 46 giving of, 14 – 15, 251, 299 as glorious, 262 as medicinal, 268 natural, 253 oral and written, 129n83 personification of, 46n48 Patriarchs as, 24 Paul and, 4n6 Plato and, 23 – 24 reading of, 160 in Romans, 53 – 62 Sabbatical year, 150 suicide and, 201 – 202 works of the, 212n136, 253 written on hearts, 251 lectionary cycle (see also haft ̣arah), 148, 210, 250 – 251 three-year, 164n10, 250, 296 legal exegesis (see halakhah) letters Akkadian, 160 textual commentary in, 19, 25 – 26 Greco-Roman, 218 – 220, 246 – 248 in ink and stone, 235 Jewish, 130, 218n150 of recommendation, 255, 259 – 260 light by light, 291 Logos appearing to Moses, 295 as cause, 291 as generated, 290

342

Index of Subjects

as God’s ἰδέα, 293n81 as God’s εἰκών, 276, 289 – 293 as instrument, 292 as living speech, 82n119 and messiah, 277 παρακλήσεως (see “homily”) psychic vision and, 86, 276, 289n73, 291n79, 292 – 297 as rock in the wilderness, 77 as shadow, 290 – 294 Lucilius, 219, 246 – 247 historicity of, 219 as Seneca’s Timothy, 219 middah gezerah shewah (see rhetoric, σύνκρισις πρὸς ἴσον) shnei kethubim, 169, 210 midraschartige Stücke, 26, 31, 34, 63, 67, 78 – 81, 89 – 92, 99 midrash, 4, 128 Amoraic, 149, 162 as descriptor of Pauline exegesis, 3 – 5, 9, 52, 64, 69 Essene, 4n5, 215, 217 haggadic, 78, 162n6, 213, 217, 262n12 in NT literature, 3 – 4, 128 – 133, 164 – 168, 279 legal (see “halakhah”) pre-rabbinic, 128 – 129, 161n3, 215, 262n12 rabbinic, 4 – 5, 13n32, 36, 46n48, 125n79, 128 – 133, 184, 190 Samaritan, 262 mirror vision, 287 – 294 ministers (see Corinthian correspondence) Mosaic exemplarity, 248, 264 – 265, 271, 286 Moses a people like, 270 – 295 absolved for Israel’s failures, 245, 300 as king, lawgiver, prophet, 280n66 as parrhesiast, 272 – 276 as priest, 280 – 286, 294 as sage, 89, 173, 273 – 276, 293 as visionary, 88, 263 – 264, 270 – 295 faith(fulness) of, 236 – 37, 267, 273, 278 – 280

minister of death, 267 minister of renewed covenant, 266, 298 veil, 15, 79 – 89, 127, 235, 239, 243 – 245, 251, and Chapter 6 passim Nadab and Abihu as positive exemplars, 286 narrative (see “story”) narratology, 33, 45 – 47 focalizer, 45 – 47, 274 new covenant (see “covenant”) νόμος (see “law”) old covenant, (see “covenant”) onomasticon, 86, 102, 122n74 ὠφέλεια (see “utility”) paraenesis, 39, 43n37, 52, 57, 65 – 70, 76, 130, 161n3, 165, 196, 223, 237n21, 239, 248 paraphrase, 31 – 33, 36 – 48, 53, 59, 65, 68, 81, 83n121, 85, 87, 89, 93, 99, 113, 116n57, 121 – 124, 137 – 143, 149, 153, 158, 161n2, 182 – 187, 191, 199 – 201, 204, 205, 208, 263, 266, 284 parrhesia, viii, 28, 82, 239, 271 – 280 as bold approach, 271, 276 – 277 Christian-Mosaic construct, 287, 294, 296 as citizen attribute, 278n60 democratization of, 278, 295 as frank speech, 271 and friendship, 273 horizontal and vertical, 271 – 273, 276 – 277 of Jesus, 277, 280 mixed variety, 272 Moses and (see “Moses”) as noetic speech, 276 as priestly attribute, 277 – 280, 294 partition theories of 1 Corinthians, 63n77 of 2 Corinthians, 63n77, 229 patterns of exegesis (see “exegesis”) Paul education, 16n43, 27, 92, 108n26 and n29, 261 esp. n11, 296

Index of Subjects

like and unlike Moses, 257, Chapter 6 passim esp. 264 – 270, 282 – 284, 297 as a Pharisee, 4n6, 16n43, 25, 107, 109 – 110, 260 universalism, 109 – 110 pesher 11QMelchizedek, 149 – 156 continuous, 101, 147, 152 in D, 218, 240 – 243 deictic exegesis (see “exegesis”) in the past tense, 68 relation to pišru, 101, 160 thematic, 101, 147 – 149 Three Nets of Belial, 240 – 242 on Torah, 147, 149n129, 212n136 petiḥot, 162, 168 – 171 Phaedrus ascent of the soul, 86n127, 301 rhetorical unity, 27n75, 229 Philo of Alexandria apologetic works, 30n4, 130 architectonic thinker, 111, 292n79 Armenian text of, 111, 116 – 120, 196, 208 as Platonist, 260 education, 108, 130 embassy to Gaius, 109, 113 “finality” of his text, 233 messianism of, 277n58 philosophical works, 130 three commentary series, 23, 26, 30, 105 – 106, 111 – 124 universalism of, 109 – 110 use of sources, 110, 125 Philo’s colleagues radical allegorizers, 18, 294n83 literalists, 18 Plato as exemplar, 248 critique of written speeches, 267n25 theory of recollection, 136 – 139, 235 Platonism allegoresis, 25, 32 anti-sophistic invective, 254n55 commentary, 15, 18, 31, 100, 103 – 105, 117, 133 – 136, 242, 246, 258 debates within, 137, 142, 247

343

deep interpretation of the prooimia, 137 development of metaphysics, 246 dogmatic character, 139 in Latin, 221 – 222 in Paul, 5, 12 – 13, 32, 107 – 108, 257, 263 – 270, 276, 287, 294 in Philo, 86n127, 108, 260, 294 relation to Peripatetic School, 140, 222n163 and n164 relation to Stoicism, 108, 140, 247 traditions, 257 prayer house in diaspora, 16n43, 17, 108, 200 primary lemma, 37, 48 – 49, 53 – 55, 90, 113, 118 – 120, 125 – 126, 131, 135 – 138, 147, 151 – 156, 170 – 171, 180 – 183, 187 – 192, 215 – 217, 232 – 238, 250, 282 – 286 primary level exegesis (see “exegesis”) probatio (see “proof”) proof, 33n14, 34n15, 50n60, 53 – 55, 60, 70, 81, 85, 117n62, 122 – 123, 135 – 140, 152 – 158, 172, 176, 210, 259, 280, 292 προσευχαί (see “prayer house”) psychic nakedness, 283, 285 – 287 quaestio-solutio as basic unit of commentary, 112, 122, 208n124 Questions and Answers on Genesis, 30, 55, 110 – 121, 149n127, 184n68, 207 secondary lemmata in, 125n78 Qumran, 4 – 6, 26, 42, 101, 105 – 106, 133, 145 – 154, 168, 173, 212 – 217, 240 – 242 Rabbi Ishmael, 36, 46 Rabbinic Judaism, 4 – 5, 13, 19, 29, 36 – 38, 41 – 43, 108, 110, 128 – 133, 145, 161, 167, 169, 171, 184, 190, 210, 262, 268, 275 (see also “midrash”) recollection (see “Plato”) renewed covenant (see “covenant”) rhetoric a minori ad maius, 81 – 88, 266 amplification, Chapter 5 passim apology (see separate entry) Asianism, 198, 260n8 brevity, 181

344

Index of Subjects

chiasmus, 24, 55, 83, 172 criticism of Paul’s letters, 108, 169 diatribal question, 33, 39, 46, 54, 61, 88, 209 digression 133, 211, and Chapter 5 passim education (see “education”) exemplum (see separate entry) inclusio, 67, 82, 164, 166, 173 parallelism, 36n27, 71, 77n110, 180n59, 193 and physiognomy, 253 – 254, 260, 300 probatio (see “proof”) prose rhythm, 260 relation to exegesis, 6, 17, 20n50, 30, 49, 51 – 52, 62, 107, 133, 141, 157, 164, Chapter 5 passim repetition, 50, 84, 88, 165 – 166, 266 Second Sophistic (see separate entry) synkrisis, 79, 82, 230, 235 – 239, 267, 279 σύνκρισις πρὸς ἴσον, 41 unity, 3, 7, 17, 27, 51, 55, 63, 117, 220, Chapter 5 passim, 259 ζήτησις (see separate entry) Roman world, viii, 6, 10, 16 – 18, 22 – 27, 30, 57, 65n82, 71, 78, 100, 104, 109, 130 – 135, 157, 164, 198, 212, 218, 223, 231, 236, 248, 253, 255, 267 – 268, 277 (see also “Second Sophistic”) salvation history, 24, 46, 51, 77, 168, 241, 243 Samson as sage, 206, 210 imitation of, 200, 206 infancy narrative of, 206 rehabilitation of, 200 riddle of, 207, 210 spirit of, 207 – 208 Sarah contrast with Samson’s mother, 210 as free(d) woman, 37 – 38, 42 Galatians allegory of, 37 – 38 as Jerusalem above, 37 – 38 as domina, 42n37 as mother, 37

as oracle, 46 as piety, 38 Scripture as, 45 – 48 as the soul, 38 as wisdom, 38 scripture and kerygma, 29, 129 pedagogical role, 46 personification of, 35, 36n25, 43, 45 – 48, 209 and tradition, 29 translation into Greek, 102 tripartition of, 54n68, 148 written copies of, 92n136 Second Sophistic, 8, 10, 14, 253 – 255, 258 – 262, 300 important cities of the, 261n11 Second Temple Judaism, 4 – 6, 16, 22, 38, 102, 119, 128, 145, 149 – 150, 268 secondary lemma absence of single exegetical pattern, 126 concatenation of, 118, 120 in Philo, 124 – 126 secondary-level exegesis (see “exegesis”) Seneca, 218 – 222, 246 – 250 fictional letters to Paul, 219 suicide of, 248 – 249 use of commentary tradition, 246 Septuagint, 153, 161, 208, 238, 280 Old Greek, 115 Paul’s use of, 31 – 32, 43 – 44, 48, 53, 75, 102, 107, 263n12 Philo’s use of, 107 – 108, 115 – 116, 287 recensions, 115 sequential exegesis (see “exegesis”) skopos of literary work, 136 – 138, 141 – 143, 231 sophists, 8, 10, 14, 253 – 255, 258 – 262, 300 anti-sophistic invective, 259 – 262 Stichwörterverbindung (see “catchword bonding”) Stoicism, 19, 103, 108, 140, 142, 219, 221 – 223, 277 cognitive impression, 142 diatribe, 49 ethics, 134n91, 246

Index of Subjects

interpretation of the Timaeus, 247 in Paul’s thought, 108 story as theological framework, 15, 21, 39, 128 – 132 Streitgespräch, 179 – 182, 195 suicide of Jonah, 201 rejected by Paul, 248 of Seneca, 248 super-apostles, 63 synagogue, 9n21, 13n32, 16n43, 17, 29, 105 – 106, 108, 111n41, 125, 148, 161 – 168, 177 – 184, 195, 200, 250, 255 – 256, 274 – 275, 296, 300 synkrisis (see “rhetoric”) σύνκρισις πρὸς ἴσον (see “rhetoric”) συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (see “letters”) tabernacle/tent, 16 – 17, 88, 118, 216, 224, Chapter 6 passim identification of tent with tabernacle, 275 targumim, 13, 43, 85 – 86, 102, 107, 180, 184, 262 – 263, 275 Tarsus rhetorical training in, 4n6, 261n11 Pharisees in, 260 sophism in, 260 tertiary lemma, 216 – 217, 282 textual community, 18n46, 213, 223 θεῖος ἀνήρ, 7 Timaeus, Cicero’s Latin translation, 222 Stoics as readers of, 247

345

treatise as a generic descriptor, 6, 16, 27, 100, 104, 105n19, 131 – 132, 162 – 163, 212, 218 – 223, 230 – 232, 239, 243 – 249, 258 trilingualism Paul as trilingual, 86, 102, 107n22 type, 24 Adam as, 269 ambivalent type, 270 and antitype, 269 Israelites as, 123, 237 Janus-faced, 270 Melchizedek as, 155 Moses as, 264, 269 – 270, 273, 293 Nineveh as, 200 Zedekiah as, 155, 269 use of scripture (see “exegesis”) utility rhetorical principle, 57, 58n73, 247 vice lists, 69, 71, 78 vision of God (see “God”) weak and strong in Corinth, 253 – 254, 274 Wisdom of Solomon Paul’s knowledge of, 16n43, 17n44, 48n52, 72, 76 – 77, 107, 257n61, 276, 294 ζήτησις (see also midrash), 4n6, 5n10, 111, 135, 142, 184 ζητητικοί, 233