Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions: The Hermeneutical Worlds of the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts and the Letter to the Romans 9781472550798, 9780567271587

Citation preview

For Carrie

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS For abbreviations designating titles of primary sources, please see Patrick H. Alexander, John F. Kutsko, James D. Ernest, Shirley DeckerLucke, and David L. Petersen, eds., The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Other abbreviations used that are related to primary literature include: * ° [] BHS c

ET

frg(s). GS

lit. l(l). LXX MT

NA27

NASU OG UBS

4

v(v).

An original reading of a corrected text A probable restoration of a textual lacuna In a quotation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, a gap in a text, perhaps with its restoration; in a quotation from the Greek New Testament, a contested reading Rudolf Kittel, Hans Bardtke, Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, G. E. Weil, Hans Peter Rüger, et al., eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, editio funditus renovate, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1967 A corrected text English translations Fragment(s) Robert Hanhart, Werner Kappler, Alfred Rahlfs, John William Wevers, and Joseph Ziegler, eds., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1931– literally line(s) Septuagint Masoretic text Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, and Barbara Aland, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 New American Standard Bible. La Habra, Calif.: Lockman Foundation, 1995 Old Greek Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed., New York: United Bible Societies, 1998 verse(s)

xiv

Abbreviatons

Abbreviations used that are related to secondary literature include: A&C ABRL ABS AcadBib ACTR AGJU ALUOS ANYAS ASBT ATANT ATLABS BAR BASOR BBB BBR BDSS BFTP BH&H BI Bib BibInt BibSac BJRL BJS BJSUCSD BNTC BR BRev BRS BTNT BZNW CAL CBQ CBQMS CCP CCR CCWJCW ChDog CHJ 1

Affirmation and Critique Anchor Bible Reference Library Approaches to Biblical Studies Academia Biblica Ashgate Contemporary Thinkers on Religion Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATLA Bibliography Series Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins Bulletin trimestriel de la Faculté libre de Théologie protestante de Paris Baptist History and Heritage Biblical Interpretation Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bibliotheca sacra Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Research Bible Review Biblical Resource Series Biblical Theology of the New Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Cambridge Companions to Philosophy Cambridge Companions to Religion Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World: 200 BC to AD 200 Church Dogmatics Cambridge History of Judaism

Abbreviatons CITM CJA Concordia COQG Counterpoints CPF CQS CRINT CTHP CTJ Didsbury DJD DRev DSD EBRTKAS ECIL EGNT EJIL ErIsr ESCO ESSP ETL ExAud ExpTim FO FRLANT FTLZ HNTR HTR HUCA ICC Int ISSP IVPNTC JAAAT JAAR JBL JBLMS JBT JETS JFA JGRChJ JHS JJRelSt JJS 1

xv

Christianity in the Making Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Concordia Journal Christian Origins and the Question of God Counterpoints: Bible and Theology Contemporary Philosophy in Focus Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy Calvin Theological Journal The Didsbury Lectures Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Downside Review Dead Sea Discoveries Ergebnisse – Berichte – Reflexionen aus Tagungen der Katholischen Akademie Schwerte Early Christianity and Its Literature The Expositor’s Greek New Testament Early Judaism and Its Literature Eretz-Israel European Studies on Christian Origins European Studies in Social Psychology Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Ex Auditu Expository Times Folio Orientalia Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forum Theologische Literaturzeitung History of New Testament Research Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpretation International Series in Social Psychology InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series Journal of Asian and Asian American Theology Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Faith and the Academy Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Japanese Journal of Religious Studies Journal of Jewish Studies

xvi JNES JQR JSBLE JSIJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSP JSPSup JSS JSTP JTS JVN KNT LBS LCL LD LNTS LSTS MTSR NAOTS NCBQ NEA Neot NIB NICNT NIGTC NovT NovTSup NRT NTC NTL NTS NTS NTT NTTS Numen OBL P&R P&T PBM PNTC PRSt PTMS 1

Abbreviatons Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Judaism of the Second Temple Period Journal of Theological Studies Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Library of Biblical Studies Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina Library of New Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Method and Theory in the Study of Religion Newsletter on African Old Testament Scholarship The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Near Eastern Archaeology Neotestamentica New Interpreter’s Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Nouvelle revue théologique New Testament Commentary New Testament Library New Testament Series New Testament Studies New Testament Theology New Testament Tools and Studies Numen: International Review for the History of Religions Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia Philosophy and Rhetoric Philosophy and Theology Paternoster Biblical Monographs Pillar New Testament Commentary Perspectives in Religious Studies Princeton Theological Monograph Series

Abbreviatons PTSDSSP QC QdS QJS Qol RB RefR RelS ResQ RevQ RTHC RTR SACNTISS SBCT SBET SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SBLSymS SCL SD SDSSRL SE SFSHJ SIJD SJT SNTSMS SPB SPCIC SPCKTC SPS SSEJC STDJ STI SUNT SVTQ

xvii

Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project/The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations Qumran Chronicle Quaderni di Semitistica The Quarterly Journal of Speech Qol Revue biblique Reformed Review Religious Studies Restoration Quarterly Revue de Qumran Romans through History and Culture Reformed Theological Review St. Andrews Conference on New Testament Interpretation and the Social Sciences Studies in the Believers Church Tradition Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Sather Classical Lectures Studia Delitzschiana Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studi ecumenici South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studia Post-Biblica Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus SPCK Theological Collections Seminar Paper Series Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studies in Theological Interpretation Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 2006

Them TI TLZ TNTC TrinJ TS

Themelios Testamentum Imperium Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Trinity Journal Theological Studies

1

xviii TSAJ TSK TynBul TZ USQR VT VTSup WBC WF Worship WTJ WUNT WZKMU ZAW ZNW

1

Abbreviatons Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theologische Studien und Kritiken Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wege der Forschung Worship Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx-Universität Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

PREFACE In its earliest de¿nite form, movement toward this project began with a PhD seminar paper on Paul’s use of Jeremiah. That occasion was certainly bene¿cial for beginning to ask the kinds of questions entertained here. Yet, continued study and reÀection have only stressed further the value and necessity of carefully seeking to understand the hermeneutical paradigms current in various forms of Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Various ancient texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition situate their own audiences or communities on an eschatological cusp. The texts’ authors believed themselves to have some special insight into a climactic enactment of the purposes of Abraham’s God for his people. Not least among such texts are the Yahadic manuscripts from Qumran and Paul’s letter to the Romans. Therefore, it is hoped that this volume will, in some measure, contribute to current discussions of Yahadic and Pauline hermeneutics in general and, in particular, to contemporary understandings of the hermeneutical paradigms that animate these authors’ engagement with Israel’s sacred texts. In his seminal Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer, one of the twentieth-century’s most noted hermeneutical theorists, counsels: When we try to understand a text, we do not try to transpose ourselves into the author’s mind [in die seelische Verfassung des Authors] but, if one wants to use this terminology, we try to transpose ourselves into the perspective within which he has formed his views [in die Perspective, unter der der andere seine Meinung gewonnen hat]. But this simply means that we try to understand how what he is saying could be right. If we want to understand, we will try to make his arguments even stronger.1

1. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (ed. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; 2d ed.; New York: Continuum, 2006), 292; English italics added; German text inserted from HansGeorg Gadamer, Hermeneutik: Wahrheit und Methode (2d ed.; Gesammelte Werke of Hans-Georg Gadamer; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1993), 297; originally published Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Tübingen: Mohr, 1960).

xx

Preface

Yahadic and Pauline interpretations of Israel’s scriptures, not to mention other ancient Jewish and early Christian readings, are sometimes dismissed too easily. At various points, the sons of enlightened common sense may well be tempted to stand over the sons of the dark, ancient past with a wand extended and ready to wave—and on that wand is the name ‘Well, that’s how those odd people did things back then’. The words may be neither uttered nor printed. Nevertheless, the sentiment is a real temptation when the ‘foreignness’ of how these authors handle their scriptures proves to be a bit much for contemporary readers of their interpretations to ‘understand how what [they are] saying could be right’. This ‘understand[ing] how [they] could be right’ lies, therefore, at the heart of the present project. Whether these authors’ readings are reading their sacred texts well or correctly lies somewhat beside the point. Instead, the central aim here is to sketch a way of approaching these authors’ readings as strong—or, indeed, ‘even stronger’—readings within their own respective contexts. For their involvement, feedback, and support at various stages of this project, thanks are particularly due to John Burkett, James Charlesworth, Peter Flint, Doug Green, Mike Kelly, Andreas Köstenberger, Kirk Lowery, Tremper Longman, Dan McCartney, Ben Merkle, and Steven Taylor. Thanks is also due to the team at Bloomsbury T&T Clark for facilitating this project’s publication and to my copy-editor, Duncan Burns, for his careful attention to the manuscript and the preparation of the indices. This project is certainly better for their inÀuence, but of course, any faults or de¿ciencies in it remain the author’s alone.

1

Chapter 1

TOWARD A FRESH VANTAGE POINT FOR CONSIDERING USES OF JEWISH SCRIPTURE

1. A Lesson from a Toolshed You can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always misled… Where is the rot to end? The answer is that we must never allow the rot to begin. We must, on pain of idiocy, deny from the very outset the idea that looking at is, by its own nature, intrinsically truer or better than looking along. One must look both along and at everything.1

In his short essay, ‘Meditation in a Toolshed’, C. S. Lewis reÀects on the experience of standing in a dark toolshed and observing a sunbeam coming through a crack above the closed shed door.2 Moving so that the sunbeam fell across his eyes, Lewis found himself no longer looking at the beam but looking along the beam at the outside world. The beam itself had disappeared from sight and what had appeared to it were tree leaves and the sun. ReÀecting on this experience, Lewis wonders at the privilege that looking at frequently receives over looking along. Being ‘in love’ is not an emotional connection that imbues the lover’s experience of the beloved with almost indescribable and inestimable value. It is simply the operation of speci¿c physiological and psychological processes. The best account of a particular religion can be sought not from that religion’s adherents themselves but from anthropologists and sociologists who specialize in studying that religion. The most reliable account is that of those who look at rather than those who look along.

1. C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 215; italics original. 2. Ibid., 212–15. This essay originally appeared in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, July 17, 1945.

2

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

Thankfully, such an extreme preference for looking at over looking along is very far from being held by all at all times and with reference to all subjects. Yet, this preference or one of its close cousins does sometimes assert itself, as it seems to do not infrequently in contemporary discussions of hermeneutics within Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. In one sense, contemporary scholarship’s preference for looking at over looking along is quite understandable, even laudable. By de¿nition, historical distance situates contemporary scholars as those who can only look at things from the past. The past itself is not present to them, and there would be no good in pretending that it is. At the same time, the perspective from which one looks at is necessarily limited by one’s own horizon of possibilities.3 From this viewpoint, contemporary interpreters can only look at the texts that the Qumran Yahad (%' § Community) and Paul have left and look at the scriptural texts that these authors seem to have used.4 Judgments can then be 3. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (ed. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; 2d ed.; New York: Continuum, 2006), 301–2. 4. Unless otherwise noted, all translations provided here for non-Englishlanguage texts are the author’s. Designating as the Yahad the community behind the sectarian writings unearthed at Qumran is fairly conventional but also, respecting these text’s own verbiage, not without its own additional quali¿cations (Sarianna Metso, ‘Whom Does the Term Ya­ad Identify?’, in De¿ning Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen [ed. Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popviü; STDJ 70; Boston: Brill, 2008], 63–84). For discussions of methods for determining precisely which Qumran texts should be associated with the Yahad and in what ways, see Devorah Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Signi¿cance’, in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58; Charlotte Hempel, ‘Kriterien zur Bestimmung “essenischer Verfasserschaft” von Qumrantexten’, in Qumran kontrovers. Beitraሷge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. Jörg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann; EBRTKAS 6; Paderborn: Bonifatus, 2003), 71–85; Armin Lange, ‘Kriterien essenischer Texte’, in Frey and Hartmut Stegemann, eds., Qumran kontrovers, 59–69; Carol A. Newsom, ‘ “Sectually Explicit” Literature from Qumran’, in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. Baruch Halpern, William H. Propp, and David Noel Freedman; BJSUCSD 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167– 87; Henry Wolfgang Leatham Rietz, ‘Collapsing of the Heavens and the Earth: Conceptions of Time in the Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls’ (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Princeton, N.J., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000), 25–40. On the signi¿cance of the Yahadic texts’ vocabulary, see also Jonathan G. Campbell, ‘The Qumran Sectarian Writings’, in The Early Roman Period (ed. William Hornbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy; CHJ 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 801; Matthew Collins, The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

3

rendered about the relationship between the original, scriptural texts and their Yahadic or Pauline interpretations, but this judgment can only be rendered from a perspective that was not party to the ancient milieu in which these authors used their scriptural texts as they did. Therefore, in itself, looking along these authors’ viewpoints is impractical, and in itself, looking at their interaction with their sacred texts is liable to parse this interaction in very different ways to those that the authors themselves would recognize.5 (LSTS 67; London: T&T Clark International, 2009), 2, 22, 26; cf. Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995), 95–96, 165; Carol Ann Newsom, ‘Constructing “We, You, and the Others” through Non-Polemical Discourse’, in García Martínez and Popviü, eds., De¿ning Identities, 14–15. Hempel, ‘Kriterien zur Bestimmung “essenischer Verfasserschaft” ’, 71, observes that the term ‘Essene’ tends to have a somewhat different referent and relationship to the Qumran community in recent German and English literature on the subject. In this light, Hempel (ibid., 72) suggests caution about German scholarship’s conventional but imprecise preference for discussing the Qumran sectarian texts as ‘Essene’. Therefore, as an alternative to this language, Hempel proposes the more verbally cumbersome description of these texts as characterized by ‘authorship or redaction through the Yahad or the S[erek ha-Yahad]tradents’ (Verfasserschaft oder Überarbeitung durch den Jachad oder die S(erekhha-Jachad)-Tradenten) or, more concisely, as ‘community-speci¿c’ (gemeindespezi¿sch; ibid., 75). Emmanuel Tov, ‘The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin of These Scrolls’, Text 13 (1986): 31–57, and Scribal Practices and Approaches ReÀected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Boston: Brill, 2009), 263–73, attempts to describe an orthographic basis for identifying Yahadic texts. On this point, see also Dong-Hyuk Kim, ‘Free Orthography in a Strict Society: Reconsidering Tov’s “Qumran Orthography” ’, DSD 11 (2004): 72–81; Emmanuel Tov, ‘Reply to Dong-Hyuk Kim’s Paper on “Tov’s Qumran Orthography” ’, Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 359–60. Methodologically, particular stress has been laid on the usage of distinctive vocabulary as a key feature that sets off a given work as a Yahadic text (Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts’, 27–29; Hempel, ‘Kriterien zur Bestimmung “essenischer Verfasserschaft” ’, 76; Lange, ‘Kriterien essenischer Texte’, 65; Rietz, ‘Collapsing of the Heavens and the Earth’, 26–29). Among the distinctive vocabulary identi¿ed is the epithet !:#/ 98! (the Righteous Teacher; Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts’, 27 n. 11; Hempel, ‘Kriterien zur Bestimmung “essenischer Verfasserschaft” ’, 76; Lange, ‘Kriterien essenischer Texte’, 65; Rietz, ‘Collapsing of the Heavens and the Earth’, 27), and as discussed further below, one may add with this phrase cognate vocabulary that seems to have the same referent. Therefore, because the present study focuses on texts that refer to the Teacher, these texts are all Yahadic (the Damascus Document and the pesharim on Micah, Habakkuk, Isaiah, Psalms), but not all Yahadic texts refer to the Teacher (e.g. the Community Rule, the War Rule). 5. Cf. Adolf Schlatter, The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology (trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 18. 1

4

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

As with one’s own contemporaries, however, so is the case with studying authors from the past: the best procedure is to ‘look both along and at everything’. Thus, neither a looking along nor a looking at is a suf¿cient avenue in itself for considering the Yahad and Paul’s interactions with their scriptures. What is required instead is a looking along with. This page’s readers will, no doubt, be familiar with such experiences. One person says to another, ‘Come look at this’, but it is not clear precisely what this is from the second person’s current vantage point. So, the second moves in some way in order to be in better alignment with the speaker’s vantage point and see what this is. That is, the second person tries to look along with the ¿rst in order to see what was not clear from some other vantage point. In so doing, the motion of the second person to look along with implies two intentional points of concentration. First, the person called to ‘look at this’ is concentrating intently on the general area in which this might possibly be found. The whole endeavor is, in the end, an effort to see this object. Second, the person called to ‘look at this’ is concentrating intently on the speaker’s standpoint and his or her own relationship to it. To some extent, both of these acts of vision represent a looking at, but in combination, they involve the second person in an act of looking along with the ¿rst person at some common object that has now come into the second person’s ¿eld of vision. The two viewpoints are still not identical, but in looking along with the speaker, the second person gains a greater understanding—impossible from the second person’s original ¿eld of vision— of what the speaker has seen and how he or she has seen it. 2. Looking Down a Less-traveled Road Therefore, two questions are of primary concern here. First, how did allegiance to the Righteous Teacher or Messiah Jesus shape the body of presuppositions, or hermeneutical paradigm, with which the Yahad or Paul read their scriptures? Second, how do the Yahadic and Pauline paradigms relate to each other? a. Typical Approaches and Emphases In deference to methodological or intertextual concerns, such questions have tended to receive, at best, only marginal treatment in recent discussions.6 Similarly, a good deal of attention has been devoted to reading 6. Works that concentrate on methodological issues include: G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Moshe Bernstein and Shlomo A. Koyfman, ‘The 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

5

the Yahadic texts for the testimony that they provide about the historical life of the Teacher, as have both Romans and the broader Pauline corpus

Interpretation of Biblical Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods’, in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 61–87; Monica Brady, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the “PseudoEzekiel” Fragments (4Q383–391) from Cave Four’, in Henze, ed., Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, 88–108; George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1985); F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale, 1960); Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (New York: de Gruyter, 1995); Maurice Casey, ‘Christology and the Legitimating Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, in Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. L. North (ed. Steve Moyise; JSNTSup 189; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000), 42–64; Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Philip R. Davies, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient Period (ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane Frederick Watson; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1:144–66; E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957); Michael A. Fishbane, ‘The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics’, in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. Avigdor Shinan; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977), 1:97–114; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ‘Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7 (1961): 297–333; Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. Donald Madvig; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2001); Silvia C. Keesmaat, ‘In the Face of the Empire: Paul’s Use of Scripture in the Shorter Epistles’, in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 182–212; Timothy H. Lim, ‘Eschatological Orientation and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher’, JNES 49 (1990): 185–94; idem, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997); idem, ‘Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters’, in Scrolls and the Scriptures (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1997), 280–92; Roger Nicole, ‘The New Testament Use of the Old Testament’, in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. G. K. Beale; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 13–28; J. C. O’Neill, ‘ “For this Hagar Is Mount Sinai in Arabia” (Galatians 4.25)’, in Moyise, ed., Old Testament in the New Testament, 210–19; Eva Osswald, ‘Zur Hermeneutik des Habakuk-Kommentars’, ZAW 68 (1956): 243–56; John Pester, ‘ “My Understanding in the Mystery of Christ”: The Hermeneutic of Paul in Ephesians’, A&C 4 (1999): 39–45; Jeffrey S. Rogers, ‘Scripture Is as Scripturalists Do: Scripture as a Human Activity in the Qumran Scrolls’, in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; SSEJC 5; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1997), 28–43; Lawrence H. 1

6

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

for their testimony to the historical Jesus.7 These areas are near neighbors of the present study. The object seen (a given, scriptural text) and the

Schiffman, ‘Contemporizing Halakic Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (ed. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange; SBLSymS 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 35–41; E. Slomovic, ‘Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, RevQ 7 (1969): 3–15; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Carol K. Stockhausen, ‘2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis’, in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 83; SSEJC 1; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1993), 143– 64; Geza Vermes, ‘The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in Its Historical Setting’, ALUOS 4 (1969): 84–97. Among works that concentrate on intertextuality, including those just listed as exhibiting a signi¿cant methodological interest, are: James W. Aageson, ‘Written Also for Our Sake: Paul’s Use of Scripture in the Four Major Epistles, with a Study of 1 Corinthians 10’, in Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, 152–81; Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (LNTS 301; New York: T&T Clark International, 2005); Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (BI; New York: Brill, 2008); Campbell, Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document; Roy E. Ciampa, ‘Scriptural Language and Ideas’, in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (ed. Christopher D. Stanley and Stanley E. Porter; SBLSymS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 41–57; Craig A. Evans, ‘Listening for Echoes of Interpreted Scripture’, in Evans and Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 47–51; Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989); Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy Andrew Huizenga, eds., Reading the Bible Intertextually (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009); Morna D. Hooker, ‘Adam Redivivus: Philippians 2 Once More’, in Moyise, ed., Old Testament in the New Testament, 220–34; Steve Moyise, ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, in Moyise, ed., Old Testament in the New Testament, 14–41; Stanley E. Porter, ‘Allusions and Echoes’, in Porter and Stanley, eds., As It Is Written, 29–40; Christopher D. Stanley, ‘ “The Redeemer Will Come ¼χÁ ÀÑÅ”: Romans 11.26-27 Revisited’, in Evans and Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 118–42; Andrew Hollis Wake¿eld, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Signi¿cance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3.1-14 (Academia Biblica; Boston: Brill, 2003). 7. Discussions of portions of the Teacher’s life from the Qumran texts include: F. F. Bruce, ‘The Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts’ (paper presented at the meeting of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, London, July 6, 1956); Phillip Callaway, The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

7

medium through which the seeing occurs (the interpretive method) are both essential components of an act of vision. But, not to be neglected as the third essential component of an act of vision is the (Yahadic or Pauline) eye that sees.8 Consequently, in an effort to look along with the (JSPSup 3; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1988); James H. Charlesworth, ‘An Allegorical and Autobiographical Poem by the Moreh HaÑ-6edeq (1QH 8.4-11)’, in Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 295–307; idem, ‘Jesus as “Son” and the Righteous Teacher as “Gardener” ’, in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 140–75; idem, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 30–42, 80–109; idem, ‘The Righteous Teacher and the Historical Jesus’, in Earthing Christologies: From Jesus’ Parables to the Jesus Parable (ed. W. P. Weaver and James H. Charlesworth; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1995), 46–61; John J. Collins, ‘The Origin of the Qumran Community: A Review of the Evidence’, in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Essays in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer (ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1989), 159–78; Mathias Delcor, ‘Le Docteur de Justice, Nouveau Moise, dans les hymnes de Qumrân’, in Le psautier: Ses origines, ses problèmes littéraires, son inÀuence (ed. Robert Langhe; OBL 4; Louvain: Université de Louvain, 1962); C. T. Fritsch, The Qumran Community: Its History and Scrolls (New York: Macmillan, 1956); Maxine L. Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study (STDJ 45; Leiden: Brill, 2002); Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963); Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (CCWJCW 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Alain Michel, Le Maître de Justice d’après les documents de la Mer Morte, la littérature apocryphe et rabbinique (Avignon: Aubanel, 1954); Jerome MurphyO’Connor, ‘Teacher of Righteousness’, ABD 6:340–41; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: An Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981); Kevin Smyth, ‘Teacher of Righteousness’, ExpTim 69, no. 11 (1958): 340–42; Michael O. Wise, ‘Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement’, JBL 122 (2003): 53–87. Discussions of Jesus’ life from various portions of the Pauline corpus include: Paul W. Barnett, ‘The Importance of Paul for the Historical Jesus’, Crux 29 (1993): 29–32; S. G. F. Brandon, ‘The Historical Element in Primitive Christianity’, Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 2 (1955): 156–67; F. F. Bruce, Paul and the Historical Jesus (Manchester: John Rylands University Library, 1974); Warner Fusselle, ‘The Historical Jesus in the Thinking of Paul’ (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1950); Kenneth Grayston, ‘Jesus: The Historical Question’, DRev 95, no. 321 (1977): 254–70; Eleanor Jerry, ‘Paul, the Historical Jesus, and the Jerusalem Community. The Meaning of ǿȈȉȅȇǾȈǹǿ in Gal. 1.18’ (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1979); Stephen Keegan, Paul’s Use of the Sayings of Jesus and His Interest in the Historical Jesus (Rome: Ponti¿cia Universitas S. Thomae, 1976); J. Spencer Kennard, ‘The Burial of Jesus’, JBL 74 (1955): 227–38; C. Stewart Petrie, ‘Paul and the Historical Jesus’, RTR 2 (1943): 3–15; Frank C. Porter, ‘Does Paul Claim to 1

8

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

Yahad and Paul as they consider their scriptures, of primary interest here is the nature of the respective hermeneutical standpoints from which this Yahadic or Pauline vision occurred. Therefore, this question is certainly not one about these readers’ inner mental states but about the vantage point from which their recorded interpretations of their sacred texts could have been correct.9 To focus on this ‘vantage point’ is essentially to focus on the Yahadic and Pauline ‘effective histories’ (Wirkungsgeschichten). These effective histories are the cumulative bodies of preconditions and prejudgments that helped shape these readers to understand their sacred texts speci¿cally as they did.10 To be sure, contemporary interpreters themselves also have hermeneutical situations that their particular, historical settings have de¿ned.11 Recent scholarship has begun devoting concerted attention to this fact but has tended to consider effective history (Wirkungsgeschichte) primarily as it ¿nds expression in later reception history (Rezeptionsgeschichte).12 Considering effective history as a lens for Have Known the Historical Jesus? A Study of 2 Corinthians 5.16’, JBL 47, no. 3–4 (1928): 257–75; Maurice A. Robinson, ‘Spermologos: Did Paul Preach from Jesus’s Parables?’, Bib 56 (1975): 231–40; Stephen O. Stout, The ‘Man Christ Jesus’: The Humanity of Jesus in the Teaching of the Apostle Paul (New York: Wipf & Stock, 2011); N. H. Taylor, ‘Paul and the Historical Jesus Quest’, Neot 37 (2003): 105–26; David Wenham, Paul and the Historical Jesus (Cambridge: Grove, 1998); G. Wessels, ‘The Historical Jesus and the Letters of Paul: Revisiting Bernard C. Lategan’s Thesis’, NovTSup 124 (2007): 27–52; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (COQG 3; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003), 207–39. 8. Anselm of Canterbury, ‘On Free Will’, in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (ed. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans; trans. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 180. 9. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 292; cf. E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1967), 14; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 239–40. A valid assessment of an author’s inner mental state was the goal of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s ‘divinatory’ stage of interpretation (e.g. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts [ed. Heina Kimmerle; trans. James Duke and Jack Forstman; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977], 64, 98–99). 10. F. R. Ankersmit, Sublime Historical Experience (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 436; Gadamer, Truth and Method, 299. 11. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 301. 12. E.g. Eugen Biser, Paulus: Zeugnis, Begegnung, Wirkung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003); Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (STI; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006); Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘Hierarchy, Prophecy, and the Angelomorphic Spirit: A Contribution to the Study of the Book of Revelation’s Wirkungsgeschichte’, JBL 127 (2008): 173–94; 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

9

understanding contemporary interpreters’ relation to the texts they discuss is certainly legitimate and fruitful. Yet, these texts are themselves effected by their own historical contexts and are receivers of particular historical traditions. As this observation applies to the Yahadic texts and Romans, scholarship has already made some limited efforts toward describing these texts’ historical situations and how these situations effect the hermeneutical presuppositions and goals that the texts evidence.13 Yet, even in these cases, the literature has not described in detail James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (CITM 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); Josef Ernst, Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte (New York: de Gruyter, 1989); Craig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011); Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God (BTNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009); Hans-Theo Wrege, Wirkungsgeschichte des Evangeliums: Erfahrungen, Perspektiven und Möglichkeiten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (COQG 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). 13. For examples of works that discuss these texts’ hermeneutical presuppositions, see: David Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1992); Terence L. Donaldson, ‘Thomas Kuhn, Convictional Worlds, and Paul’, in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (ed. Bradley Hudson McLean; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1993), 190–98; Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997); Prosper Grech, ‘Inner-biblical Reinterpretation and Modern Hermeneutics’, in Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis (ed. Petr Pokorný and Jan Roskevec; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 2002), 221–37; Donald H. Juel, ‘Interpreting Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament’, in Hauser and Watson, eds., A History of Biblical Interpretation, 1:283–303; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Martin Pickup, ‘New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis’, JETS 51 (2008): 353–81; James M. Scott, ‘ “For as Many as Are of the Works of the Law Are Under a Curse” (Galatians 3.10)’, in Evans and Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 187– 221; Slomovic, ‘Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls’; Klyne Snodgrass, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’, in Beale, ed., The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, 29–51; Christopher D. Stanley, ‘The Social Environment of “Free” Biblical Quotations in the New Testament’, in Evans and Sanders, eds., Early Christian Interpretation, 18–27; J. Ross Wagner, ‘Isaiah in Romans and Galatians’, in Isaiah in the New Testament (ed. Steve Moyise and M. J. J. Menken; New York: T&T Clark International, 2005), 117–32; Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004); Florian Wilk, ‘Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians’, in Moyise and Menken, eds., Isaiah in the New Testament, 133–58. As in sentence-level grammar, so also in discussions of hermeneutics, interpretive goals are not always readily distinguishable from interpretive results. For examples of 1

10

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

the presuppositional frameworks that the Teacher and Jesus effected for their communities.14 Almost certainly, these frameworks would have further developed as their communities encountered their scriptures afresh, but these scriptural readings cannot ¿nd an ef¿cient cause (or body of causes) in themselves or, indeed, in other scriptural readings. With respect to a whole hermeneutical framework, to cite one or more scriptural readings as the ef¿cient cause of another simply pushes back one step the question of these readings own ef¿cient cause(s).15 Rather, some judgment, or constellation works that do discuss interpretive goals distinguishably from interpretive results in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, however, see: Peter Enns, ‘Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving Beyond a Modernist Impasse’, WTJ 65 (2003): 263–87; Dennis L. Stamps, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal’, in Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, 9–37; James C. VanderKam, ‘To What End? Functions of Scriptural Interpretation in Qumran Texts’, in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. Peter W. Flint, Emmanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; VTSup 101; Boston: Brill, 2006), 302–20. 14. Aageson, ‘Written Also for Our Sake’, 155–56, 178, does observe how Jesus determined Paul’s hermeneutic. Yet, Aageson does not substantively describe this claim’s implications for Paul’s presuppositions. In addition, Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 61–62, suggests that Jesus’ teaching helped establish presuppositions for apostolic exegesis much as did the Teacher’s instruction for the Yahad. Doubtless, this observation is valid, especially for the eleven apostles remaining from Jesus’ original twelve. Moreover, even in Paul’s Damascus-road experience, Acts 9.4-6; 22.7-11, 17-21; 26.14-18 portrays Paul as having been instructed by Jesus. Nevertheless, this instruction has the importance that does for these individuals only because of its alignment with the person of Jesus—the one who died and whose messianic claims Yahweh vindicated by raising him from the dead. Consequently, Jesus’ instruction was certainly formative for Paul. On the other hand, it could have happened that someone else had voiced this same instruction and Yahweh’s messiah had delivered contrary directions. In this scenario, only following the instructions of Yahweh’s vindicated messiah would have been consistent with Paul’s recognition of Yahweh’s authority over his people. Within this framework, some or all of this messiah’s teaching, seen as Yahweh’s own word, may have become ‘paradigmatic’ in the sense described below, but this status would logically derive from the teaching’s source rather than from the teaching itself. 15. For instance, Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 14–163, suggests that Paul’s scriptural reading strategy emerges from his reading of Habakkuk. Watson’s concern to avoid portraying Paul as, at best, naively and Àippantly squeezing his scriptures a Jesus-shaped framework is commendable, but it leaves somewhat open the question of why Paul should have come to read Habakkuk as he did in the ¿rst place. Paul had previously opposed Jesus’ community quite forcefully (Acts 8.3; 9.1-2; 22.3-4; 1 Cor. 15.9; Gal. 1.13; Phil. 3.6; 1 Tim. 1.13), and in so doing, Paul seems to have 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

11

of judgments, that logically precedes a given reading is what ultimately gives rise to that reading.16 b. Agents and Assumptions Carefully attending to the Yahadic texts and to Romans shows these dynamics in full play in their authors’ readings of their scriptures. In addition, these texts show that the particular individual (i.e. the Righteous Teacher, Messiah Jesus) their authors identi¿ed as Yahweh’s appointed representative established or reinforced a particular set of prejudgments from which these respective authors read their scriptures. Neither the Yahad nor Paul had always read Israel’s scriptures as they did once they granted their allegiance to the one they perceived as Yahweh’s eschatological agent. This change in allegiance was, in a sense therefore, ‘revolutionary’ and transferred the Yahad and Paul into distinctly different hermeneutical worlds from the ones that they had previously inhabited. In part, therefore, seeking better to understand the Yahad and Paul entails looking along with them at their scriptures from these new vantage points ‘inside’ allegiance to a particular ¿gure they believed Yahweh to have appointed. From these new vantage points, both the Yahad and Paul assume: (1) Yahweh is blameless and faithful. (2) Israel’s scriptures speak directly to the community that rightly recognizes Yahweh’s appointed agent, and (3) this agent reliably guides the community about Yahweh’s will. (4) The community itself stands at the culmination of Yahweh’s purposes for his people, but (5) those outside the community stand under Yahweh’s displeasure. Assumption (1) seems to be a function of these authors’ broader Jewish identity. Within the bounds of this assumption, assumptions (2–5) seem to be functions of seeing a single

understood himself as behaving faithfully toward Yahweh and, in turn, toward Israel’s scriptures (Acts 23.1; Gal. 1.14). Something outside these scriptures themselves must, therefore, be the ef¿cient cause of the change in Paul’s understanding of them so that he then came to see them as positively supporting the community of Jesus’ followers, which Paul had previously persecuted so vigorously (e.g. Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel [2d ed.; WUNT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1984]; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977], 442–47; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991], 258–67). 16. Hans-Georg Gadamer, ‘The Universality of the Hermeneutical Problem’, in Philosophical Hermeneutics (ed. David E. Ligne; trans. David E. Ligne; 1st paperback ed.; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1977), 9, 14. 1

12

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

individual as the locus of Yahweh’s special action, largely or wholly irrespective of that individual’s own personal identity. Where the Yahad and Paul sharply part company in their hermeneutical presuppositions is in how they relate faithfulness to Israel’s scriptures to faithfulness to Yahweh’s appointed agent. For the Yahad, allegiance to the Teacher means seeing him as inscribing himself within these scriptures. The Teacher provides the halakah that gives these scriptures the necessary speci¿city to guide the community’s life as Yahweh’s people. For Paul on the other hand, allegiance to Jesus means seeing him as circumscribing these scriptures within himself. Jesus is the one around whom Israel’s scriptures orient themselves. Once inside the hermeneutical worlds of allegiance to either ¿gure, that ¿gure is axiomatic for the community’s encounter with its scriptures. Consequently, the community’s interpretations of its scriptures will also tend to be consistent with its interpretation of its central ¿gure.17 Presuppositions established by the relevant ¿gure affect each community’s encounter with the text, but there are fundamental, ideological differences in: (1) how each community connects its scriptures to its key ¿gure, (2) the details of the community’s image of its ¿gure, and (3) the patterns of interpretive results that these factors create or reinforce as the community encounters its scriptures. c. Religion and Revolution, Presuppositions and Paradigms Sociologically, ‘conversions’ (i.e. comings-to-acceptance) and their attendant effects are dif¿cult to map consistently because of the widely varied experiences that fall under this designation.18 On an only slightly more abstract level, however, it is feasible to create a consistent sketch of how individuals and communities come to understand in certain ways

17. Cf. Aristotle, Poet. 1453b, 1454b, 1455b, 1460a; Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak; corrected ed.; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 27–73; Gadamer, Truth and Method, 268–306; J. David Stark, ‘Rewriting Prophets in the Corinthian Correspondence: A Window on Paul’s Hermeneutic’, BBR 22 (2012): 225–49 (231–33); Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 38–44. The Greek text underlying these and subsequent references to Aristotle’s Rhetoric is Aristotle, Ars rhetorica: Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit (ed. W. D. Ross; Oxford Classical Texts; Oxford. Clarendon, 1959); translations from the Rhetoric are mine. 18. Nicholas H. Taylor, ‘The Social Nature of Conversion in the Early Christian World’, in Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scienti¿c Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (ed. Philip Francis Esler; SACNTISS; New York: Routledge, 1995), 124. 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

13

and of the hermeneutical dynamics to which these experiences give rise.19 One useful scheme for producing this sketch for the Yahad and Paul is Thomas Kuhn’s typology of scienti¿c revolutions. Kuhn’s sketch of the mechanics of scienti¿c revolutions describes the physical and natural sciences as having essentially ‘hermeneutical’ bases as the term is generally used in the humanities.20 Kuhn could describe himself as actually doubting whether some scienti¿c work was properly and regularly hermeneutical,21 but such an assessment reÀects Kuhn’s rather narrower usage of the term ‘hermeneutics’. For Kuhn, a ‘hermeneutical’ endeavor directly establishes or modi¿es a hermeneutical basis, or ‘paradigm’.22 By contrast, in the humanities, one may properly describe as ‘hermeneutical’ any task that involves a subject understanding an observation of an object.23 In this broader sense of the term ‘hermeneutics’, Kuhn’s analysis shows that scienti¿c endeavor is regularly, albeit perhaps implicitly, hermeneutical whenever it too involves a subject’s understanding an observation of an object.24 Some recent biblical scholarship has sought to qualify or dispute the application of Kuhn’s observations about scienti¿c revolutions to patterns of change in thought about humanities subjects.25 In no case, however, do these quali¿cations or disputes invalidate the application of Kuhn’s theory of scienti¿c revolutions as a scheme along which to sketch and understand the hermeneutical revolutions that the Yahad and Paul experienced.26 Indeed, the process of scienti¿c revolution and the paradigmatic state that results from a revolution closely resemble the histories and paradigms that the Yahad and Paul experienced. Therefore, 19. Ibid., 130–32. 20. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Road Since Structure (ed. James Conant and John Haugeland; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 218, 221–22. 21. Ibid., 222. 22. Cf. Ibid. 23. Cf. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other Writings (ed. Andrew Bowie; trans. Andrew Bowie; CTHP; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 3. 24. David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 33; cf. Robert F. Shedinger, ‘Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship: Is Biblical Studies a Science?’, JBL 119 (2000): 453–71 (467). 25. E.g. Vern S. Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (ed. Moisés Silva; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 454–73; Shedinger, ‘Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship’. 26. Cf. J. David Stark, ‘Reading in Biblical Studies: Thomas Kuhn’s Signi¿cance for Contextualizing the Discipline’, JFA 5 (2012): 40–54.

1

14

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

approaching the Yahadic texts and the letter to the Romans from this angle provides a valuable tool for understanding these texts’ effectivehistorical situations. (1) The Birth of Scienti¿c Communities First published in 1962, Kuhn’s Structure of Scienti¿c Revolutions reappropriated and signi¿cantly adapted Immanuel Kant’s quali¿cations of empirical science.27 Perhaps most signi¿cantly, Kuhn replaced Kant’s transcendental truths of reason with theoretical paradigms.28 Thus, although Kuhn certainly does appear to adopt Kant’s occasional language about intellectual ‘revolutions’, for Kant, these revolutions move interpretations of empirical observations into greater conformity with reason’s transcendent truths.29 By contrast for Kuhn, these revolutions result in the adoption of a new paradigm, which may itself eventually be discarded when another paradigm appears preferable, and no paradigm is necessarily more ‘transcendent’ than any of its predecessors.30 In Kuhn’s typology, loose scienti¿c amphictionies typically involve different schools of thought that seek ‘relevant’ facts somewhat individualistically according to whatever paradigms from other areas of thought they ¿nd most inÀuential.31 These amphictionies still have paradigms that provide hermeneutical guidance, but the amphictionies lack a uni¿ed paradigm to bind them together into a single, coherent community. The amphictionies may continue as such for some time before developing a consistent paradigm and maturing into particular scienti¿c communities.32 When this maturation happens, it typically occurs in a generally identi¿able historical period, but the precise moment at which the transition occurs is dif¿cult to pinpoint.33 In any case, the community’s initial paradigm typically emerges from one of its ‘pre-paradigm schools’,

27. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scienti¿c Tradition and Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 336–37, and Since Structure, 103–4, 264. 28. Cf. Kuhn, Since Structure, 264. In his later work, Kuhn discarded the term ‘paradigm’, however, because other authors had appropriated it in such diverse manners that Kuhn felt the term had become too dif¿cult to use precisely (ibid., 221). 29. E.g. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (trans. John Miller Dow Meiklejohn; New York: American Home, 1902), 23–30. 30. Cf. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scienti¿c Revolutions (3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 2, 12, 151–52. 31. Ibid., 15–17. 32. Ibid., 11. 33. Cf. ibid., 21. 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

15

or amphictionies, whose micro-paradigm comes to command broader assent and to unite multiple amphictionies into an identi¿able community.34 Paradigms generally attract adherents from alternatives by producing suf¿ciently unprecedented achievements, yet these new paradigms still leave work to be done because of the dif¿culties and areas of study that they suggest.35 Still, the individuals accept a given paradigm implicitly judge the problems that the paradigm introduces to be less severe than those that it resolves.36 Otherwise, they would scarcely become active adherents of a particular paradigm. Therefore, while scienti¿c communities and the individuals within them select paradigms, paradigms also de¿ne the communities themselves, and young scientists gain entrance into a mature scienti¿c community by learning to operate within that community’s paradigm.37 Conversely, those already established as community members may exclude from their ¿eld’s discourse those who refuse to accept the paradigm ascendant in that particular ¿eld.38 In this way, the paradigm forms its adherents and their work into a relatively cohesive, identi¿able tradition of ‘normal science’ within which individuals rarely disagree over their paradigm’s fundamental attributes.39 (2) Normal Science Within a given normal-scienti¿c tradition, the community’s paradigm directs research by suggesting which experiments and data are relevant or irrelevant for solving a given problem.40 The paradigm also guides new and more speci¿c theory articulation, and the paradigm releases the ¿eld’s practitioners from the rhetorical obligation to rearticulate the ¿eld’s foundations in each new work they produce.41 A paradigm implies pledges about problems that it will resolve and new achievements that it will enable, and most scientists work for most of their careers in normalscienti¿c processes that demonstrate how these pledges actually operate.42 In all cases, however, the paradigm of a given, normal scienti¿c tradition de¿nitively determines the research that is performed within

1

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Ibid., 17–18. Ibid., 10, 17–18, 80. Ibid., 23. Ibid., 10–11. Ibid., 19, 104. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 18, 24, 34. Ibid., 18–20, 23, 34. Ibid., 23–24, 30, 35–42.

16

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

that paradigm—‘to desert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it de¿nes’ and to cease membership in the paradigm’s community.43 Assuming the community desires to af¿rm their paradigm’s validity by acting consistently with it, this paradigm will dictate speci¿c rules (i.e. research methods and evaluation standards).44 Yet, these rules do not themselves provide coherence to a given normal-scienti¿c tradition.45 Rather, these rules interpret a logically prior paradigm that determines a particular normal-scienti¿c tradition.46 Strictly speaking, normal science

43. Ibid., 34, 46. Still, a paradigm may be articulated in different ways, provided that these alternatives self-confessedly work from and toward what the paradigm’s community considers suf¿cient common ground (ibid., 46–47, 73; Edwin H.-C. Hung, Beyond Kuhn: Scienti¿c Explanation, Theory Structure, Incommensurability, and Physical Necessity [Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2006], 62–70; see also D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 88–89). 44. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 43, 48, 94; Peter Achinstein, ‘A Discussion of Kuhn’s “Values”: Subjective Views of Kuhn’, in Science Rules: A Historical Introduction to Scienti¿c Methods (ed. Peter Achinstein; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 413; Anthony C. Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermeneutics: Collected Works and New Essays (Ashgate Contemporary Thinkers on Religion; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2006), 711. 45. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 44. 46. Ibid., 43–44, 46. Elsewhere (ibid., 49), Kuhn argues that ‘[e]xplicit rules, when they exist, are usually common to a very broad scienti¿c group, but paradigms need not be’, which might seem to suggest a different logical priority between paradigms and rules than the one identi¿ed here. Kuhn, however, goes on to make the assertion just quoted explicitly to support his contention that paradigms logically precede rules. The rules common to broad, scienti¿c groups, therefore, appear to be rules dictated by the more general paradigm to which ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ hold, although these macro-categories admittedly encompass substantial variety. For instance, as currently practiced, ‘modern science’ generally presupposes things like ‘accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness, explanatory power, and plausibility’ to be valuable (Achinstein, ‘Kuhn’s “Values” ’, 413; cf. Kuhn, Essential Tension, 321–22). Consequently, when Kuhn speaks of rules that characterize a broader group than do paradigms, he apparently intends slightly different referents for the key terms than he does elsewhere in his argument. That is, the broader rules derive from the broader scienti¿c community’s shared paradigm, which Kuhn leaves in silent opposition to the narrower paradigms that receive explicit mention and that characterize particular normal-scienti¿c communities (cf. Quentin Quesnell, ‘On Not Neglecting the Self in the Structure of Theological Revolutions’, in Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lonergan, S.J. [ed. Timothy P. Fallon and Philip Boo Riley; Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1987], 125–26). Indeed, after receiving numerous critiques about his seeming imprecision in his ‘paradigm’ language, Kuhn later clari¿ed the concept’s nuances in precisely 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

17

does not necessarily require these rules in order to function.47 Yet, normal-scienti¿c investigation can continue without rules ‘only so long as the relevant scienti¿c community accepts without question the particular problem-solutions already achieved. Rules…therefore become important and the characteristic unconcern about them…vanish[es] whenever paradigms or models are felt to be insecure.’48 Debates about rules frequently occur in the ‘pre-paradigm period’, but they also typically recur when reigning paradigms are perceived to come under attack from suggested inadequacies or proposed modi¿cations.49 As long as a paradigm reigns unchallenged, however, the community that it constitutes need not attempt to rationalize its paradigm.50 Moreover, any apparently insoluble dif¿culties with the paradigm are held to result from the inadequacy of the research conducted rather than the inadequacy of the paradigm under which the dif¿culties appear.51 Normalscienti¿c endeavor can suggest what it perceives as bene¿cial re¿nements to a paradigm, but because the paradigm de¿nes normal science itself, the paradigm’s essential components stand beyond normal science’s re¿ning the inÀuence.52 Therefore, suggested re¿nements of the reigning paradigm may attempt to correct observed dif¿culties, but by de¿nition, these re¿nements can only be ad hoc accretions rather than systemic revisions.53 (3) Paradigmatic Crises To provoke a change in a paradigm under which normal science operates, the paradigm’s community must experience a ‘crisis’ that demonstrates to them a ‘pronounced failure’ of their paradigm.54 A crisis usually follows persistent failure to resolve suf¿ciently problematic dif¿culties

this fashion. No one exhaustive paradigm exists. Rather, the scienti¿c community as a whole shares a certain paradigm with a minimal set of characteristics, and various scienti¿c sub-communities hold paradigms that contain additional characteristics and that compete for adherents with the sub-paradigms of other groups (Kuhn, Essential Tension, 294). 47. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 44. 48. Ibid., 47. 49. Ibid., 47–48. 50. Ibid., 49. 51. Ibid., 80. 52. Ibid., 46–47, 66, 73, 128–29. 53. Ibid., 68–71, 75, 78, 86–87; cf. Hung, Beyond Kuhn, 78–79. 54. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 67, 74–75, 77, 92, 97–98; cf. Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermeneutics, 711. 1

18

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

that the community perceives with its paradigm.55 Alternatively, a crisis may occur when a given paradigm’s body of ad hoc accretions itself becomes too substantial to ignore. As one symptom of crisis, several different articulations of the current paradigm may be produced in a struggle to salvage the paradigm in conjunction with the quali¿cations that it seems to require.56 Therefore, dif¿culties with a given paradigm do not, by themselves, necessarily induce a crisis; rather, the paradigm’s community must perceive these dif¿culties as assaulting the paradigm’s essential components or as having too great a practical signi¿cance to ignore.57 Although normal scienti¿c work performed under a given paradigm may foreshadow a new paradigm, without a crisis that provides enough motivation to question the old paradigm and become open to adopting a new one, other scientists may well ignore this foreshadowing.58 (4) Extraordinary Science and Scienti¿c Revolutions When suf¿ciently apprehended, such a crisis may provide the seeds of ‘extraordinary science’, including ‘a willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals’.59 Extraordinary science’s openness to abandon old paradigms provides an occasion for ‘scienti¿c revolutions’, or major changes in reigning paradigms.60 These revolutions may differ in magnitude, perhaps even in the magnitude that they have for different groups.61 Yet, extraordinary science’s openness to change is insuf¿cient in itself to produce a paradigmatic revolution. Revolutions require the further invitations to change that alternative, seemingly plausible paradigms present.62 That is, in evaluating whether to change paradigmatic allegiances, scientists must evaluate a paradigm in conjunction with 55. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 67–68; cf. Paul Ricœur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and Interpretation (ed. and trans. John B. Thompson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 271. 56. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 70–71, 83–84. 57. Ibid., 81–82; cf. Hung, Beyond Kuhn, 16–18. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 81, also suggests that normal-scienti¿c research may aggravate previously small problems until they become too dif¿cult to resolve. Yet, such dif¿culties would still appear to help cause crises primarily by assailing a paradigm’s essential components or by enticing scientists with promises of unignorable practical bene¿ts. 58. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 75, 86. 59. Ibid., 91. 60. Ibid., 34, 90. 61. Ibid., 49–51, 92. 62. Ibid., 76–77; cf. Carson, Gagging of God, 88. 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

19

plausible alternatives. Without these alternatives, scientists will continue operating under a current paradigm because, for all the dif¿culties they might see in it, it remains the best paradigm available.63 When scienti¿c revolutions happen, they occur suddenly and in ways that are not completely quanti¿able. This latter fact particularly helps account for the controversy and opposition often experienced in the historical period surrounding a given revolution.64 The broader scienti¿c community’s shared paradigm speci¿es criteria by which a particular community can evaluate whether they wish to adopt a candidate paradigm. Yet, these criteria’s applications and relative weights are insuf¿ciently clear to guide those who are using them to choose a particular paradigm simply and strictly by empirical demonstration.65 Consequently, paradigmatic change shares substantial characteristics with the nature of ‘conversion’ (i.e. coming to acceptance) in other areas like religion.66 Similarly, once the change happens, the old paradigm appears mistaken

63. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 77. The need to evaluate both the available paradigms and the observed phenomena creates what Kuhn describes as an ‘essential tension’ between science’s traditional and progressive impulses (cf. ibid., 79, and Essential Tension). 64. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 89–90, 151–52, 159; cf. Bernard Barber, Social Studies of Science (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction, 1990), 97–113; Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 461. 65. Achinstein, ‘Kuhn’s “Values” ’, 413; Kuhn, Essential Tension, 320–22, 329; cf. Carson, Gagging of God, 89–90; Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 94, 152, 160–87; Kuhn, Since Structure, 208–15. 66. Kuhn, Essential Tension, 338; Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 473. In particular, Tomas Sundnes Drønen, ‘Scienti¿c Revolution and Religious Conversion: A Closer Look at Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Paradigm-Shift’, MTSR 18, no. 3 (2006): 232–53, is generally favorable toward applying Kuhn’s taxonomy to ‘religious’ conversion. Drønen (ibid., 247–51) does raise some doubts about applying Kuhn’s perspective on paradigmatic incommensurability to ‘religious’ contexts, but precisely in ever more embedded subparadigms, Kuhn’s notion of incommensurability has its fullest expression. For, just as A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect, so also, when a paradigm shifts at any point (non-A), that paradigm is, as a whole, no longer what it was previously (A). Moreover, contrary to the impression one may derive (from ibid., 232–53), Kuhn fully allows for paradigm shifts of differing magnitudes and, therefore, of paradigms that have differing amounts of distance between themselves (cf. Quesnell, ‘On Not Neglecting the Self’, 125–26). This allowance permits variety and incommensurability at a micro- or idio-paradigmatic level and uni¿cation of a whole scienti¿c community at a macro-paradigmatic level. Consequently, Kuhn’s view of paradigmatic incommensurability actually seems to ¿t the nature of ‘religious’ conversion quite well. 1

20

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

when viewed from within the new paradigm.67 Scientists who choose to resolve a crisis by changing paradigmatic allegiances view the same data from a different perspective and have, therefore, a different explanatory context for that data.68 In the transition from one paradigm to another, scientists radically reconceptualize their ¿elds, objects of inquiry, and validation standards. Thus, because of their worldview change, these scientists’ construction of the world that they inhabit after the paradigm shift fundamentally differs from the one that they inhabited before the shift.69 d. Kuhn and the Humanities This portrait of scienti¿c progress has been understood to be rather subversive in some quarters and has, consequently, engendered a corresponding amount of debate and opposition. Yet, for this discussion, 67. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 115; cf. Glynis Marie Breakwell, Coping with Threatened Identities (New York: Methuen, 1986), 22; Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermeneutics, 712. This dynamic implies the possibility of disjunction among observation, interpretation, and how reality is conceived under the community’s new paradigm (Hung, Beyond Kuhn, 8–9, 63; Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 206). Kuhn also describes this dynamic as closely paralleling the classic Gestalt switch (ibid., 84–85). 68. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 84–85. According to Kuhn (ibid.), two other alternatives for resolving a crisis also exist. First, normal science may forestall the crisis by proposing an adjustment to the received paradigm that is plausible enough to decrease the perceived severity of the paradigm’s inadequacies. Second, scientists operating within a given paradigm may, after repeated failures to explain the observed phenomena satisfactorily, defer the problem inde¿nitely to future research. Both these alternatives, however, only allow normal scienti¿c work to continue under a given paradigm, but they do not and cannot address the fundamental issues that had created an opportunity for a crisis in the ¿rst place. Therefore, these two alternatives are better described as ways of forestalling rather than resolving paradigmatic crisis. 69. Richard E. Grandy, ‘Kuhn’s World Changes’, in Thomas Kuhn (ed. Thomas Nickles; CPF; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 246–59; Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 102–3, 109, 111–12, 118, 128–29. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 38–44, argues similarly on this point by emphasizing grand narratives (i.e. stories that people tell to explain the world and how it works) and the possibility of changing the grand narrative to which one subscribes. See Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1985), for an extended study of one historical example of this process. For several additional, but briefer, examples, see Kuhn, Since Structure, 12–32. For other examples of paradigmatic shifting toward chaos theory, see James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Penguin, 1988). 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

21

whether the intense debate about Kuhn’s theory of science as such ¿nally resolves in his favor or not is somewhat secondary.70 Rather, the concern here is whether and how Kuhn’s theory helps model the hermeneutical effects that the Teacher and Jesus had on their communities’ biblical interpretation. As one step along this road, two treatments of Kuhn’s general relevance to the ¿eld of biblical studies bear consideration. (1) Shedinger: Quarantining Kuhn Robert Shedinger argues that the paradigmatic behavior and revolutions that Kuhn describes do not signi¿cantly touch upon biblical studies. In so doing, Shedinger chieÀy objects that biblical studies have different conversation partners than do the natural sciences.71 The latter dialog with other scholars and physical evidence. The former often dialog primarily with other scholars ‘about the proper way to interpret already known primary source material’.72 Yet, according to Shedinger, some biblical studies disciplines like biblical archaeology may spend more time in and place more emphasis on ‘engag[ing] the past directly’.73 By implication, even while it is not a particularly good description of how biblical studies functions in general, Kuhn’s description may be more applicable to this narrower subclass of biblical studies disciplines. Such a critique, however, is puzzling for at least two reasons. First, no biblical studies discipline, including biblical archaeology, can ‘engage the past directly’.74 Biblical studies disciplines have only a present body of evidence that exists as it does because of a speci¿c series of past effects upon that evidence. Yet, the physicist operates under similar constraints when he ‘studies’ gravity—that is, properly speaking, the physicist studies observable phenomena and constructs an explanation for them (i.e. gravity). This explanation can then be set in the context of other phenomena and re¿ned, but the kind of observation that occurs when ‘observing’ gravity as such is quite different from the kind of observation that occurs when ‘observing’ a rock moving from a higher to a lower altitude. The former entails a further, theoretical construction of the observed data. This construction closely resembles the dynamic at work when a biblical scholar observes data and draws conclusions about the past event(s) that most likely produced the effect of the data observed.

1

70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 462. Shedinger, ‘Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship’, 468–69. Ibid., 469. Ibid. Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 354.

22

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

Second, although Shedinger admits that his distinction between biblical studies and the natural sciences should not be overplayed, he also urges his readers to adopt the following characterizations of both ¿elds: [T]he primary research venue for the biblical scholar is the library, a venue where one encounters a relatively small number of primary sources concerning biblical antiquity but a vast number of secondary sources, written by other biblical scholars, with which the researcher is expected to be in conversation. For the scientist, the primary research venue is the laboratory, a venue where the scientist employs ever more sophisticated technology to observe, measure, and otherwise analyze aspects of the physical world, be it elementary particles in a bubble chamber or DNA strands in a genetics lab.75

Yet, why should biblical scholars accept this restriction of their disciplines to handling a ‘relatively small number of primary sources concerning biblical antiquity’? The metaphoric contrast that Shedinger develops between the ‘library’ and the ‘laboratory’ is problematic enough in itself because it presumes that physical or electronic libraries provide only limited access to primary sources. At the same time, Shedinger’s analogy assumes that laboratories provide access to primary data in a context free from their own metaphoric ‘libraries’ of accepted, scienti¿c knowledge that is internalized in the scientists’ own preunderstandings, implied in the laboratory’s own equipment and construction, or both.76 Additionally, as a scholarly enterprise, biblical studies needs to engage primary data, but as in the natural sciences, this engagement will occur within the context of scholarly conversation about how best to construe these data. Thus, despite Shedinger’s vigorous argument and presentation, his critique is ultimately unsuccessful and fails to suggest any meaningful dif¿culties with applying Kuhn’s model of science also to humanities disciplines like biblical studies.

75. Shedinger, ‘Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship’, 469; italics added. 76. Moreover, even given this laboratory construction, chaos theory would suggest that the behavior of the phenomena observed in the laboratory differs from one observation to the next insofar as these phenomena are themselves parts of a larger and more complex system (see Gleick, Chaos). Thus, in this respect, chaos theory relates to empirical science much the way deconstruction relates to language—that is, both chaos theory and deconstruction emphasize the instability and unpredictability in the complex systems to which they relate. Consequently, that empirical science itself can be, in effect, deconstructed also suggests that this science necessitates interpretive acts that situate it among other humanities disciplines. 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

23

(2) Poythress: Qualifying Kuhn By contrast and in step with the present argument, Vern Poythress af¿rms Kuhn’s theory of science as a model for framing contemporary biblical studies but suggests several quali¿cations are necessary.77 Yet, Poythress himself rightly mitigates the divergences between contemporary biblical interpretation and Kuhn’s pre-paradigm period so that the Poythress’s quali¿cations essentially explain how to apply Kuhn’s typology to contemporary biblical interpretation.78 Poythress further illustrates this applicability with several examples from the history of Christian biblical interpretation and from the dynamics of contemporary biblical scholarship.79 Still, Poythress discusses three distinctions between science and biblical interpretation. First, biblical interpretation speaks ‘more directly [than science does] about human life and about the life of the individual practicing interpreter as a whole person’.80 Therefore, people tend to be less willing to give up their religious commitments than they are to give up scienti¿c ones.81 Second, scripture demands a degree of loyalty so that those who believe it will be willing even to die for their beliefs.82 Third, scripture af¿rms that ‘two persuasive powers…are at war with one another in human hearts’ over religious matters.83 Nevertheless, even these distinctions are far from absolute. First, science is indeed often driven by practical concerns.84 While more theoretical, scienti¿c explorations may be ‘practical’ only insofar as they affect other things that have direct, practical applications, more theoretical explorations may still be driven by their practical effects. Similarly, some of the more theoretical aspects of biblical interpretation or theology (e.g. the supralapsarian–infralapsarian discussion within Poythress’s own Reformed community) may tend to have practical effects primarily by how they affect other doctrines or interpretations. Second, although science in itself may not demand such extreme loyalty from scientists as many Christians have understood scripture’s claims to demand, Galileo 77. Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 462–73. 78. Ibid., 462–64. 79. Ibid., 464–71, 473. For a further sampling of instances where similar dynamics may be seen in contemporary biblical studies, see Stark, ‘Reading in Biblical Studies’, 46–47 n. 40. 80. Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 470. 81. Ibid., 471; cf. Shedinger, ‘Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship’, 467–68. 82. Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 472. 83. Ibid. 84. Kuhn, Scienti¿c Revolutions, 81–82; cf. Hung, Beyond Kuhn, 16–18. 1

24

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

at least was willing to endure house arrest to be loyal to his view of the solar system.85 Thus, for Galileo, the micro-paradigm under which he operated at least made some degree of punishment for paradigmatic loyalty preferable to the other available options. Third, bearing in mind Kuhn’s own description of paradigmatic change as ‘conversion’,86 whatever the ‘persuasive power’ under which one might operate, one’s experience is still paradigmatic, and transitioning from one paradigm to another still resembles conversion. Still, although Poythress discusses these distinctions between science and biblical interpretation, he apparently does not intend that they should mitigate the applicability of Kuhn’s theory of science and scienti¿c revolutions to the process of biblical interpretation. Indeed, Poythress fundamentally views such an application favorably, saying, ‘human beings in communities, interested in understanding a subject and solving its problems, are bound to proceed in similar ways in both science and theology’.87 Thus, although Poythress prefers to qualify the application of Kuhn’s model in some details, Poythress remains congenially disposed toward applying Kuhn’s model of scienti¿c revolutions to revolutions in the ¿elds of theology and biblical interpretation.88 e. What Has Tarsus to Do with Qumran? Having thus bridged the general gap between contemporary scienti¿c and biblical interpretation, what remains is to outline how Kuhn’s typology particularly applies to the Yahadic texts and Romans. Before doing so, however, it may be bene¿cial to clarify how one may pro¿tably read all these texts together to address the kinds of questions chieÀy at issue in the present work. (1) Unity and Multiplicity, Unfamiliarity and Familiarity Reading these texts primarily to describe and set in conversation their hermeneutical presuppositions potentially encounters dif¿culty on two 85. Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo: 1633–1992 (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2005), 112–13. 86. Kuhn, Essential Tension, 338; Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 473. 87. Poythress, ‘Science and Hermeneutics’, 465; Thomas G. Guarino, ‘Rahner, Popper and Kuhn: A Note on Some Critical Parallels in Science and Theology’, P&T 8 (1993): 83–89. 88. Kenneth R. Ross, ‘A Paradigm Shift in Scienti¿c Advance: A Model for Christian Conversion in the Modern World?’, SBET 11 (1993): 1–16, likewise af¿rms the viability of applying Kuhn’s model as a taxonomy of Christian conversion in which the conversion maintains reasonable, if not fully rationalistic, coherence. 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

25

points. First, the Yahadic manuscripts manifestly derive from different scribal sources.89 These sources presumably ¿nd both their origin and audience substantially within the Yahad.90 Beyond the multiplicity of hands involved in these texts’ copying and reception within the Yahad, multiplicity in their original authorship is also essentially established.91 Second, Paul’s letter to the Romans derives from only a single author and address a local community that this author had not previously visited.92

89. For a general listing of texts identi¿ed as Yahadic based on the vocabulary they contain, see Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts’, 37–45, and see also Rietz, ‘Collapsing of the Heavens and the Earth’, 43 n. 80. In this list of 49 texts and textual groups, there seem to be attested upwards of 50 different scribal hands (see Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 19–23). The number of scribal hands attested increases still further if one expands the de¿nition of ‘sectarian’ or ‘Yahadic’ texts to include the three different senses of this language outlined by Newsom, ‘Sectually Explicit’, 172–79; contra Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts’, 28 n. 14. 90. Even if some of the sectarian manuscripts (e.g. 4QMMT) were originally addressed to audiences other than the Yahad, the documents would obtain a fresh audience within the Yahad itself if they were ever reread by those who kept and preserved them within this community. The conscious decision to preserve such a document evidences at least a willingness in the Yahad to be addressed by this document, even if this address were to function only to con¿rm what the community already thought. 91. James H. Charlesworth, ‘General Introduction’, in The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP 1; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), xxii. 92. The originality of the connection of even the most textually debated section (Rom. 15–16) to the rest of the letter is, in fact, quite sound (James D. G. Dunn, Romans [ed. Ralf P. Martin and Lynn Allan Losie; WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988], 884–85; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 4–9; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2d ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994], 470–77; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [ed. Gordon D. Fee; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 5–9, 936–37 n. 2; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes [2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 262–68; contra F. C. Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine: A Contribution to the Critical History of Primitive Christianity [ed. Allan Menzies; trans. Eduard Zeller; 2 vols.; 2d ed.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1876], 352–65; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament [2 vols.; New York: de Gruyter, 1987], 138–39). Still, some scholars express more understandable doubts about particular portions of Rom. 15–16 as printed in the NA27 (e.g. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans [2d ed.; BNTC 6; London: Hendrickson, 1991], 10–13; C. E. B. Cran¿eld, A Critical and Exegetical 1

26

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

Consequently, the Yahadic material evidences multiple authors who were probably personally familiar with their audience, and Romans evidences a single author who was not personally familiar with his audience. Granting these observations, however, the individual sectaries who authored or ¿rst received the sectarian texts for use within the Yahad stood within the community that they addressed. This fact in itself suggests a certain commonality of perspective among these texts’ different authors. Thus, in a sense, the Yahad is the single author that addresses itself in its texts. Moreover, Paul had not visited Rome before writing his letter to the church there.93 Even so, he still seems to have had a very de¿nite impression of the Roman Christians: some of this knowledge came to Paul through various means;94 some of it might also have come from what Paul knew about Christians generally that he also assumed or surmised to be true of those in Rome. Hence, although Romans and the Yahadic texts evidence some differences in these areas, this variation certainly does not substantively impede comparing them as will be done later here. (2) Scripture, Interpretation, and Patterns of Religion Beyond these considerations, three factors particularly suggest that putting the Yahadic texts into conversation with Romans over their respective hermeneutical paradigms will yield meaningful dividends. These factors are these texts’ similar: (1) core scriptures, (2) interpretive methods, and (3) patterns of religion.95 First, although the Yahad may Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cran¿eld, and G. N. Stanton; 2 vols.; rev. ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975], 5–11; Dunn, Romans, 912–13; Harry Gamble Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism [ed. Irving Alan Sparks; Studies and Documents 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 129–32; Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], at Rom. 14.23; 16.24; Jewett, Romans, 986–88; Peter Lampe, ‘Zur Textgeschichte des Römerbriefes’, NovT 27 [1985]: 273–77). Yet, such questions call more for detailed, text-critical analysis than they do for inferences about the letter’s broad literary integrity. Of course, these questions are not wholly separable, but what seem to be the comparatively more viable questions remaining about Romans’ original form affect very little the texts from the letter most relevant to the present argument. 93. Cf. Rom. 1.8-15; 15.22-29. 94. Cf. Rom. 1.8; 16.3-15. 95. So poignant are the resonances between how the Qumran scrolls and the New Testament handle their scriptures that Fitzmyer, ‘Old Testament Quotations’, 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

27

have held some documents to be scriptural that no other Jewish group at that time also held to be authoritative, their scriptures signi¿cantly overlap with the literature that Romans employs as scriptural.96 Therefore, at least in these respects, the Yahad and Paul both understood Yahweh to have delivered the same core scriptures to his people. Moreover, even where the Yahad may have uniquely or distinctively regarded certain texts as scriptural, these texts would have derived from or operated as scriptural within a context determined by the more core and more commonly recognized scriptural documents (i.e. the Torah; to a somewhat lesser extent, the prophets; and to varying degrees, the writings).97 Second, when they interpret their scriptures, the Yahad and Paul frequently use similar methods of interpretation. Much of the Yahad’s biblical interpretation survives in pesher format. This technique is rarer in Paul, but probably still present (e.g. Rom. 10.6-8), depending on how one de¿nes the form.98 Additionally, even when presenting their

297–98, suggests that ‘it would be dif¿cult to ¿nd a more ideal set of documents to illustrate the New Testament use of the Old Testament than the Qumran Scrolls, in which we see how contemporary Jews made use of their Scriptures’. 96. Ciampa, ‘Scriptural Language’, 45–46; Davies, ‘Biblical Interpretation’, in Hauser and Watson, eds., A History of Biblical Interpretation, 1:145–46; James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Signi¿cance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2004), 178; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 1–6. 97. Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 2000), 276–89; Sidnie White Crawford, ‘The “Rewritten” Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts’, ErIsr 26 (1999): 1–8 (1); idem, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 6–7; Davies, ‘Biblical Interpretation’, 1:144–46; Craig A. Evans, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon of Scripture in the Time of Jesus’, in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. Peter W. Flint and Tae Hun Kim; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 71–75; cf. Louis A. Brighton, ‘The Book of Esther: Textual and Canonical Considerations’, ConcJ 13, no. 3 (1987): 200–218 (201); George J. Brooke, ‘The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible’, in The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emmanuel Tov; The Bible as Book 4; New Castle, Del.: Oak Knoll, 2002), 36; Charlesworth, ‘General Introduction’, xxiii; Matthias Henze, ‘Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran’, in Henze, ed., Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, 169; Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‘Hearing the Old Testament in the New: A Response’, in Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, 257, 261–62; Stamps, ‘Rhetorical Device’, 11. 98. See Chapter 2 (‘Enthymemes in Pesher: A Special Case’, pp.85–87) for further discussion. 1

28

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

interpretations in pesher form, the other interpretive techniques or conventions the Yahad and Paul used are quite typical ways of reading scripture within Second Temple Judaism.99 Third, the Qumran Community and Paul had similar patterns of religion. In Pauline studies, the notion of ‘patterns of religion’ echoes heavily the subtitle and methodology of E. P. Sanders’s monumental Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.100 In Sanders’s usage, a ‘pattern of religion’ is a ‘description of how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function’, but this ‘function’ does not consist solely in a religion’s ‘pious practices’.101 Instead and more importantly, a pattern of religion involves how a given religion’s adherents understand ‘getting in and staying in’ their religious community.102 One may certainly suggest that Sanders insuf¿ciently establishes the methodological centrality that he gives to these two key points of ‘getting in and staying in’.103 How might the argument be different, for instance, if a ‘pattern of religion’ were instead ‘how a given religion’s adherents understand their place in history’s unfolding narrative’?104 To be sure, this theme is not wholly absent from Sanders’s discussion, but had it received greater weight, perhaps even the dif¿cult 4 Ezra might have seemed more at home in Sanders’s overall sketch of Palestinian Judaism.105 Nevertheless, comparing religions—or, in the case of the present discussion, bodies of religious literature—based on this literature’s implicit, underlying structures is quite sound. Indeed, in terms of the 99. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 45–76; Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 88–116, 189–93; Christopher D. Stanley, ‘Paul and Scripture: Charting the Course’, in Porter and Stanley, eds., As It Is Written, 5–6; cf. Anthony Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 168– 200; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 1–6. 100. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. 101. Ibid., 17; cf. E. P. Sanders, ‘Comparing Judaism and Christianity: An Academic Autobiography’, in Rede¿ning First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities. Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders (ed. Fabian E. Udoh et al.; CJA 16; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 20. 102. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 17. 103. Ibid. 104. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, ‘Review of E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism’, JAAR 55, no. 3 (1987): 622–24; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 167–214. 105. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 409–18; cf. Richard Bauckham, ‘Apocalypses’, in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter Thomas O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; JVN 1; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 160–75. 1

1. Toward a Fresh Vantage Point

29

hermeneutical roles of the Righteous Teacher in the Yahadic manuscripts and of Jesus in Romans, N. T. Wright’s structural proposal in a Festschrift for Earle Ellis is particularly instructive. This essay particularly discusses 4QMMT on its own terms rather than in connection with other Yahadic texts, but the adjustments required to broaden the proposal’s scope to include the other Yahadic texts are quite minor. In particular, Wright suggests that the underlying narrative structures in MMT and in Paul align as follows:106

Figure 1. N. T. Wright’s narrative ideology comparison between 4QMMT and Paul

Within his essay’s focus on MMT, Wright appropriately describes the Yahad as seeing itself as ‘marked out by “works” in the present’ and contrasts this point with Paul’s understanding of the early Christian community as being ‘marked out by “faith” in the present’.107 Yet, within the broader Yahadic corpus, allegiance to the Teacher as Yahweh’s a appointed interpreter and representative emerges as the key de¿ning

106. N. T. Wright, ‘4QMMT and Paul: Justi¿cation, “Works”, and Eschatology’, in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday (ed. Sang-Won Son; New York: T&T Clark International, 2006), 120. 107. Ibid.; cf. Martin G. Abegg Jr., ‘4QMMT, Paul, and “Works of the Law” ’, in Flint and Kim, eds., The Bible at Qumran, 65–68; James D. G. Dunn and James H. Charlesworth, ‘Qumran’s Some Works of Torah (4Q394–399 [4QMMT]) and Paul’s Galatians’, in The Scrolls and Christian Origins (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 3 vols.; The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 3:3190–201. 1

30

Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions

point for the Yahad.108 Therefore, because of the Yahad’s commitment to the Teacher, the Yahad could ultimately only regard MMT’s works as 108. Cf. 1 QpHab 2.1-3, 6-10; 5.8-12; 7.17–8.3; 9.9-12; 4Q165 frgs. 1–2, ll. 2-3; 4Q266 frg. 2, 1.14-15; frg. 4, ll. 7-8; 4Q267 frg. 3, ll. 6-7; 4Q268 frg. 1, l. 17; CD 1.10-11; 20.27-34; Charlesworth, ‘Jesus as “Son” and the Righteous Teacher as “Gardener” ’, 158; see also 1QM 13.3. By contrast, John Piper stresses that MMT C31 refers to reckoning righteousness ‘in your doing what is upright and good before [Yahweh]’ (#16+ #&!# :