The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Literature) [1 ed.] 9781433113468, 1433113465

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Editor’s Preface
Introduction
Notes
Chapter One Hosea
Notes
Chapter Two Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah
Notes
Chapter Three Nahum through Malachi
Notes
Chapter Four Variant Editions of the Twelve
Notes
Appendix One Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah
Notes
Appendix Two The Septuagint of Jeremiah
Notes
Bibliography

Citation preview

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 140

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Michael B. Shepherd

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shepherd, Michael B. The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament / Michael B. Shepherd. p. cm. — (Studies in Biblical literature; v. 140) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bible. O.T. Minor Prophets—Quotations in the New Testament. 2. Bible. N.T.—Relation to the Minor Prophets. 3. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, Textual. I. Title. BS2387.S53 225.4’04—dc22 2010042009 ISBN 978-1-4331-1346-8 ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2011 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

To my mentor, John H. Sailhamer

Table of Contents

Editor’s Preface.............................................................................................. ix

Introduction..................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Hosea ........................................................................................ 7 Chapter Two: Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah................................ 31 Chapter Three: Nahum through Malachi ...................................................... 47 Chapter Four: Variant Editions of the Twelve.............................................. 69

Appendix One: Application to Other Books: Isaiah ..................................... 79 Appendix Two: The Septuagint of Jeremiah ................................................ 91 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 103 Index ........................................................................................................... 109

Editor’s Preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Michael Shepherd examines the manner in which the New Testament cites and employs the Book of the Twelve. The author argues that while much has been written regarding The New Testament use of the Old Testament and to some degree the context out of which the references are generated, very few questions are raised regarding the larger context of the books, whether or not the New Testament authors presuppose any or great knowledge of the larger context. With a particular focus on the Book of the Twelve, Shepherd intimates that these concerns and questions are particularly acute. Moreover, he argues that the Book of the Twelve must be taken as a whole and not be isolated as is often done in scholarship. This study is certain to add to an ongoing discourse, precisely because Shepherd advocates a position that has not always generated widespread acclamation. The study will not only further expand the biblical horizon, but will do so in a direction that invites further conversation. The horizon has been expanded Series Editor

Introduction

The subject of the use of the Old Testament in the New continues to generate publications from a wide variety of perspectives.1 One key area of interest is the debate over what is the proper context in which to understand a New Testament author’s quotation of an Old Testament text. Is first-century Judaism the primary context? Is the composition of the Hebrew Bible the primary context? Do the New Testament authors isolate their quotations, or do they presuppose knowledge of the larger context of the books from which they quote?2 If they presuppose knowledge of the larger context, then what are the precise boundaries of their sources? These questions are especially pressing with regard to quotations from the Book of the Twelve (Hos–Mal). According to the UBS Greek New Testament index there are thirty quotations within the New Testament from Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi together—excluding only Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. But despite the recent research on the historical and internal evidence for the compositional unity of the Twelve Prophets the final form of the book has received little attention in introductions, commentaries, and treatments of New Testament quotations from the Twelve, which prefer instead to discuss each of the Prophets separately.3 The result of this neglect is something akin to the isolation of Genesis from the Pentateuch, or First Isaiah from Second Isaiah. Such a limitation on the context in which to understand quotes from the Twelve inevitably leads to the surface impression that the New Testament authors have simply wrenched quotes from the original context in order to suit their own purposes. But what if quotations from the Twelve presuppose an awareness of their place within the larger composition of Hosea through Malachi? What if it is necessary to redefine the original or immediate context of any one part of the Twelve to include the compositional strategy and theological message of the book as a whole? The usual reflex to this sort of talk is that the Twelve Prophets are twelve separate books, which should be rearranged chronologically according to the tenets of historical criticism. But the composition of the Twelve is really no different from that of other books of the Hebrew Bible. It consists of sources from different times and places, which have been put together or shaped in a

2

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

theologically unified way not unlike the books of Kings and Chronicles, for example. Historical criticism has gone too far in the direction of the prehistory of the text and not far enough in the direction of the final form of the text. To stop short of the final form of the Twelve is to stop short of a real historical moment of authorship and composition. The Book of the Twelve is the product of authorial/compositional intention. Its work goes beyond that of an editor or redactor.4 It bears the marks of a single composer and not those of a committee or lengthy development wherein there would be signs of compromise or even contradiction. Examination of New Testament quotes within the context of this final prophetic author’s work reveals remarkable consistency between the original text and the New Testament context. It is not necessary to presuppose that the New Testament authors were consistent with their sources, but neither is it necessary to assume they were not. The present introduction provides a brief review of the historical evidence for the unity of the Twelve and an overview of the compositional seams of the book. Treatment of the quotations from the Twelve in the New Testament then forms the main part of the volume in chapters one through three. This study follows the order of the Twelve rather than the order of the New Testament. A discussion about alternative arrangements of the Twelve appears in chapter four (see also appendix two). Appendix one demonstrates that the New Testament authors’ awareness of larger contexts is not unique to their quotations from the Book of the Twelve.

Historical Evidence for the Unity of the Twelve 1. The apocryphal book of Sirach (c. 200 B.C.) refers to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and “the Twelve Prophets” (Sir 49:10) and does not list the Twelve separately. 2. The Qumran scrolls (4QXIIa–c, e c. 150–25 B.C.) combine more than one book on a single scroll. The oldest of these (4QXIIa) ends with Jonah. 3. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr, c. 50 B.C.–A.D. 50) has parts of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. It reflects the traditional Hebrew order of the first six books over against the order of what became the standard Greek translation (i.e., the Septuagint: Hos, Amos, Mic, Joel, Obad, and Jon).

Introduction

3

4. The New Testament (first century A.D.) makes several references to individual books of the Twelve with the plural term “prophets” (e.g., Acts 7:42; 13:40; 15:15). 5. MurXII (c. A.D. 75–100) is a Hebrew scroll of the Twelve from the Judean wilderness (w/parts of Joel–Zech). It also follows the traditional Hebrew order of the books. 6. Virtually every list of canonical books—such as that of the church father Jerome or that of the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. Bat.14b, 15a)—from the first century through the sixth century A.D. counts Hosea–Malachi as one book. 7. The Masoretic Text (medieval), which marks the mid-point of every biblical book, does not mark the mid-point of each of the books of the Twelve. Rather, it marks Mic 3:12 as the mid-point of the whole book of the Twelve.

The Compositional Seams of the Twelve Several recent publications have set forth the verbal and thematic links between the Twelve Prophets.5 It will have to suffice here to survey the major seams that connect the ends of the books to the beginnings of those that follow them.6 Each one of these seams ties in to the programmatic passage of the Twelve in Hos 3:4–5. The seams obviously do not work in the secondary arrangement of the Septuagint, which has more to do with placement of the longer of the first six books at the beginning. 1. The final verse of Hosea (Hos 14:10 [Eng., 14:9]) and the opening verses of Joel (Joel 1:2–3) employ distinctive language and thematic material from the wisdom literature: the contrast of the righteous and the wicked (Prov 10:1–22:16) and the passing of instruction from the older generation to the younger (Prov 1–9). This guides the reader to seek wisdom in the Twelve about God’s activity.7 2. There is a quote from the conclusion to Joel (Joel 4:16 [Eng., 3:16]) at the beginning of Amos (Amos 1:2). Joel and Amos also have a similar view of the Day of the LORD (Joel 2:2; Amos 5:18–20). The eschatological Day of the LORD will involve the two parts of Hos 3:4–5: judgment (Hos 3:4) and restoration “at the end of the days” (Hos 3:5). 3. Amos 9:12 presents Edom as a representative of the nations to be possessed in the future Davidic kingdom. The following work of

4

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Obadiah is about the judgment of Edom (Obad 1–15) and the possession of Gentiles in the LORD’s kingdom (Obad 16–21). The messianic kingdom of Hos 3:5 includes the Gentiles. Nineveh the great city (Gen 10:11–12; Jon 1:2; 3:2) is to Jonah what Edom was to Amos and Obadiah: a representative of the Gentiles to be included in God’s kingdom. Assyria continues to serve in Micah as a figure for the Gentile domain to be possessed in the messianic kingdom (e.g., Mic 5). The concluding verses of Micah (Mic 7:18–20) and the opening verses of Nahum (Nah 1:2–3) both borrow language from the description of God in Exod 34:6–7. The LORD is gracious and compassionate (Hos 3:5), but he will not leave the guilty unpunished (Hos 3:4). The theophany in the Nah 1:2–8 and the one in Hab 3:3–15 serve as bookends for the two works. Both look forward to the “day of distress” (Nah 1:7; Hab 3:16), which corresponds to the Day of the LORD (Zeph 1:15). The end of Habakkuk (Hab 2:20; 3:16) and the beginning of Zephaniah (Zeph 1:7, 15) share verbal links related to the Day of the LORD. The restoration section of Zeph 3:9–20 relates to Haggai in a manner similar to the relationship between the restoration section of Ezek 33–39 and the following vision of the temple (Ezek 40–48). In both cases the temple represents future restoration (Hos 3:5). Haggai (Hag 1:1; 2:1, 10, 20) and Zechariah (1:1, 7; 7:1) are connected by virtue of the date of their prophetic ministries (Ezra 5:1–2). Zechariah (Zech 3:8; 6:12–13) also picks up the messianic language in Haggai’s presentation of Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23) and points to a figure in the future (Hos 3:5). The heading “the oracle of the word of the LORD” occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible: Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1. Malachi is thus a third section to the second half of Zechariah. The word yk)lm or “my messenger” in Mal 1:1 (Septuagint: “his messenger”) anticipates the description of a messenger or prophet like Elijah who will prepare the way for the messianic future in Mal 3:1, 23 (Eng., 4:5; cf., Isa 40:3–5).

Introduction

5

Notes 1

E.g., Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, eds., Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). 2 See C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (New York: Scribner’s, 1952). 3 E.g., Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise, The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2009). 4 This statement presupposes a careful distinction between the terms author/composer and editor/redactor. A biblical author is not someone who merely writes individual sources. A biblical author is someone who puts together or composes large pieces of text and gives the book its overall theological message. An editor/redactor in the traditional sense works with small-scale relations and is not responsible for the meaning of the text as a whole. 5 Paul House, The Unity of the Twelve, (Sheffield: Almond, 1990); James Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993); idem, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 218 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993); Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); James Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, (Atlanta: SBL, 2000); Christopher R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). 6 See Michael B. Shepherd, “Compositional Analysis of the Twelve,” ZAW 120 (2008): 184–93. The orthography of the Masoretic Text of the Book of the Twelve is also an important piece of internal evidence: “The Minor Prophets are…remarkably homogeneous in their spelling. The Book of the Twelve was evidently edited and transmitted as a single scroll” (Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible, BibOr 41 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986], 315–16). 7 The relationship between this reading strategy and the messianic program of Hos 3:4–5 is evident in a comparison with the compositional seams of the Hebrew Bible as a whole. At the conclusion of the Pentateuch and the beginning of the Prophets the wise man Joshua (Deut 34:9 [cf., Num 27:18]) receives instruction to meditate in the Torah day and night (Josh 1:8) in expectation of the messianic prophet like Moses (Deut 34:10 [see Deut 18:15, 18]). At the conclusion of the Prophets and the beginning of the Writings the wise reader is to meditate in the Torah day and night (Ps 1:2) in expectation of the forerunner prophet like Elijah (Mal 3:1, 23 [Eng., 4:5]). Psalm 1 features the same contrast between the righteous and the wicked as Hos 14:10 (Eng., 14:9). See John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 239–49; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1977), 86–95, 120–23.

Chapter One Hosea

Hosea 2:1, 25 (Eng., 1:10; 2:23) and Romans 9:25–26 In the opening chapter of Hosea the names of the children of Hosea and Gomer have to do with God’s dealings with Israel (cf., Isa 7:3; 8:1–4, 18; 10:21): Jezreel (Hos 1:3; “God sows”; sounds like “Israel”; reference to 2 Kgs 10:11, 30), Lo-ruhamah (Hos 1:6; “she has not received compassion”), and Lo-ammi (Hos 1:9; “not my people”). The second chapter then reverses the negative connotation of these names. Lo-ammi becomes “sons of the living God” in Hosea 2:1. All three names appear in some form in Hos 2:25: “And I will sow (cf., “Jezreel”) her for myself in the land, and I will have compassion on Lo-ruhamah; and I will say to Lo-ammi, ‘You are my people,’ and he will say, ‘My God.’” The quotation of Hos 2:1, 25 in Rom 9:25–26 initially appears to be a misquote on Paul’s part. It falls within the larger section of Romans 9–11 in which Paul is discussing the question of whether or not God’s word to Israel has failed (Rom 9:6) given the fact that the Jewish people have largely rejected their own Messiah and the fact that the church is becoming predominantly Gentile. Paul argues that this is a matter of election and grace (Rom 9:6–18). For the time being there will be only a remnant of Jewish believers (Rom 11:1–10) while God grafts in the Gentiles (Rom 11:11–24), but eventually “all Israel” will be saved (Rom 11:26; cf., Rom 4:11, 16; 9:6). Paul’s quotations from Hosea refer the names Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah to the Jewish-Gentile people of God (Rom 9:24).1 He begins with Hos 2:25—“I will call that which was not my people ‘my people,’ and the unloved ‘loved’”—but he only quotes the second and third clauses, and he quotes them in opposite order.2 His text does not follow any extant witness, but his version of the second clause in Hos 2:25 is close to several Greek manuscripts of Hosea including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Venetus (see the use of “call” in Rom 9:24). On the other hand, his quotation of Hos 2:1b—“And it will be in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God”—is very similar

8

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint with minor differences (see Codex Alexandrinus; see also 1 Pet 2:10). The solutions to the problem of reference here typically work from the assumption that the Gentiles are simply not a significant part of the constitution of the people of God in the prophetic revelation. For instance, Doug Moo comments that “Hosea is predicting a renewal of God’s mercy toward the rebellious northern tribes of Israel.”3 He then concludes that in Paul’s writings “OT predictions of a renewed Israel find their fulfillment in the church.”4 According to Moo, “…God’s final revelation in Christ gives to him [Paul] a new hermeneutical key by which to interpret and apply the OT.”5 The trouble is that no New Testament author ever mentions such a new hermeneutical axiom in any of the numerous unqualified statements in the New Testament about the full revelation of the gospel and the Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Matt 5:17; Luke 24:25–27, 44; John 1:45; 5:39, 46; Rom 1:1–2; 3:21–22; 16:25–27; 1 Cor 15:3–5; 2 Tim 3:15–17; 1 Pet 1:10–12; 2 Pet 1:16–21). In other words, the New Testament authors encourage their readers to understand their quotations according to the verbal meaning or authorial intention of the original authors. The meaning they see is really present in the text itself. So how does Paul see the Gentiles in the text of Hosea and the larger composition of the Twelve? Augustine suggested with reference to Hos 2:1 that the Gentiles were spiritually sons of Abraham and therefore constituted part of what was meant by “Israel” in Hosea’s text.6 Likewise Calvin reasoned that the restoration according to the flesh took place with the decree of Cyrus and that the restoration of which Hosea spoke was the Church, which would consist of believing Jews and Gentiles.7 But these efforts at interpretation probably do not go far enough in terms of what is happening here contextually. According to C. F. Keil, Israel had become like the Gentiles through its apostasy.8 The re-adoption of Israel also meant the adoption of the Gentiles. It is difficult to tell, however, where exactly the text of Hosea makes this point clear. The point is clear though in texts like Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 65 where the comparison with the Gentiles is much more direct. In Deut 32:5 the sons of Israel are no longer the sons of God. They have become worshipers of “strange things” (i.e., idols) not unlike the nations (Deut 32:16–17). Therefore, because they have made God jealous by a non-god, God will make them jealous by a non-people (the Gentiles) according to Deut 32:21—another text Paul quotes in his argument (Rom 10:19). Initially this means judgment at the hands of a foreign nation, but the latter verses of the song of Deuteronomy 32 introduce an ambiguity with regard to future

Hosea

9

judgment and restoration and with regard to the future relationship between Israel and the nations. Commentators simply do not agree on the referent for Deut 32:32–33. Rashi, Calvin, and Keil saw Israel in these verses, but Gordon McConville refers them to the enemies.9 A decision here obviously has implications for interpretation of the following verses. Of particular interest is Deut 32:36aa: “For the LORD will judge (or vindicate) his people” (Ps 135:14). In what sense will the LORD judge his people, and who are his people in this context? It is evident from Deut 32:37–38 that those who trust in false gods whether Israelite or Gentile are not part of his people. It is equally evident from Deut 32:39–43 that those who trust in the LORD alone whether Israelite or Gentile are part of the people of God. Thus, the LORD’s judgment of his people is a separation of the wheat from the chaff, believing Israelites and Gentiles from unbelieving Israelites and Gentiles (Heb 10:30). Deuteronomy 32:43 has a peculiar textual history, one that is pertinent to the issue at hand: Masoretic Text: Shout, O nations, his people,10 For he will avenge the blood of his servants; And he will return vengeance to his foes, And he will cover his land, his people.11 4QDeutq: Shout, O heavens, together with him, And bow down to him all you gods; For he will avenge the blood of his sons, And he will return vengeance to his foes; And he will pay back those who hate him, And he will cover the land of his people. Septuagint: Rejoice, O heavens, with him, And let all the sons of God bow to him; Rejoice, O nations, with his people, And let all the angels of God strengthen him; For he will avenge the blood of his sons, And he will return vengeance and pay justice to the foes; And he will pay back those who hate, And the Lord will purge the land of his people.

Contrary to the view of Emanuel Tov, who sees in the Masoretic Text a shortening of the longer version of the Qumran scroll and the Septuagint, it seems rather that transmission unfolded as usual from a shorter text to a longer text and, in this case, yet to an even longer text.12 Tov points out that

10

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

the poetic structure of the Masoretic Text is incomplete, but this would be an argument in its favor. Later scribes would have completed the structure. They would not have made it less complete. Tov also thinks the Masoretic Text censored the phrase “sons of God,” as it did in Deut 32:8, but Deut 32:8 is another matter. There the Masoretic Text (“sons of Israel”) and the Septuagint (“angels of God”) both have legitimate interpretations of the phrase as it appears in 4QDeutj. Censorship is a term better applied to the Qumran scroll and the Septuagint of verse 43 (also Rom 15:10). The apposition of “his people” to “nations” in the Masoretic Text was simply unacceptable, and it is remarkable that the reading survived at all in what became the traditional Hebrew text. It is also noteworthy that the following poem of Deuteronomy 33 indicates that the God of Sinai loves peoples (Deut 33:3). These peoples join Zebulun and Issachar in their pilgrimage to worship at the mountain in Deut 33:19 (cf., Isa 2:2–5; 66:18–24). Isaiah 65:1 is another text that finds its way into Paul’s argument with reference to the inclusion of the Gentiles (see Rom 10:20 where he reverses the order of the clauses in the Greek version): “I allowed myself to be sought by those who did not ask, I allowed myself to be found by those who did not seek me; I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ to a nation not called by my name.” With the exception of Ezek 10:13, the pual of )rq (“called”) is entirely unique to the second half of Isaiah (Isa 48:8, 12; 58:12; 61:3; 62:2; 65:1). Franz Delitzsch argued that the nation in this verse is Israel and suggested that the verb should be vocalized as a qal (fientive): “a nation that has not called on my name” (cf., Syr.).13 In other words, Israel is called by the LORD’s name, but she has not called on the name of the LORD. This would fit with what follows in Isa 65:2–7 where the text outlines the false worship of Israel (see Rom 10:21). But the pual reading would seem to suggest reference to a non-Israelite nation—a nation that does not bear the name of the LORD. This reading has an important link to Isa 63:19a, which uses the niphal of the same root ()rq) when it says that Israel was not called by the LORD’s name. Israel essentially became a Gentile nation when she fell into illegitimate worship. Of course, the overall framework of Isaiah casts a vision of the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s ultimate restoration of his people. The programmatic passage of Isa 2:1–5 looks forward to the flow of nations to Mount Zion “at the end of the days” when they will enjoy the teaching of the LORD as well as his justice and peace. And the concluding passage of Isa 66:18–24 details the central role of Gentile emissaries in the final ingathering of all the people of God, both Israelite and Gentile. As it goes with believing Israel, so it goes with believing Gentiles. As it goes with unbelieving Israel, so it goes with

Hosea

11

unbelieving Gentiles. In the final analysis the biblical distinction is not between Israel and the nations but between believers and unbelievers (Rom 3:29–30). God’s purpose in Scripture is worldwide (Gen 1–11). He called Abram out of the context of the nations to be the means of restoring the blessing of life and dominion in the land not merely to Israel but to all the nations (Gen 12:1–3, 7; 35:11). It should be no surprise then that Isaiah and Hosea use the language of the Abrahamic covenant when they speak of their future hope (Gen 22:17; Isa 10:22–23; Hos 2:1) and that Paul takes the cue from Hos 2:1a—which precedes his quoted text in Hos 2:1b—and includes a quote from Isaiah 10:22–23 (Rom 9:27), which refers to the same Genesis text as Hos 2:1. The final remnant or people of God according to the Hebrew Scriptures will consist of physical and non-physical descendants of Abraham who believe (Ps 117; Dan 7:13–14; Rom 15:7–13). There is no need for a new hermeneutical key to determine this.14 The question remains, however, whether this message is clear in the composition of Hosea and the Twelve. Israel has in fact become like the nations in her idolatry, for which Hosea uses the metaphor of harlotry (cf., Jer 3), but it is the larger context of the Twelve that ties this to the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s kingdom. It is perhaps best to begin with the programmatic passage in Hos 3:4–5: “Because for many days the children of Israel will dwell without a king and without a leader and without sacrifice and without pillar and without ephod and teraphim. Afterwards the children of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king and fear the LORD and his goodness at the end of the days.” After a time in exile without a king and without external expressions of worship, the people will seek their God and their Davidic king, which suggests a renewed and united kingdom.15 The phrase “at the end of the days” links this text to the major poetic passages of the Pentateuch (Gen 3:14–19; 49:1–27; Exod 15:1–18; Num 23–24; Deut 32–33) where the same phrase occurs in Hebrew (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 31:29).16 These poems speak of the eschatological and messianic future for the people of God. The phrase also occurs in the programmatic passage of Isaiah (Isa 2:2; also Mic 4:1), the restoration sections of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 30:24; Ezek 38:16), and in the book of Daniel with reference to the sequence of kingdoms leading up to the defeat of the final enemy of the people of God and the establishment of the messianic kingdom (Dan 2:28; 10:14). Thus, the use of this key phrase at the beginning of the Twelve invites great expectations. The Amos-ObadiahJonah sequence later picks up the thread of Hos 3:4–5 and includes the nations within the people of God.

12

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Amos 9:12 and Acts 15:17 The language of Hos 3:5 emerges again in the striking and unexpected conclusion to Amos: “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David…in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations on whom my name is called…” (Amos 9:11–12). Once again a book largely devoted to the demise of the northern kingdom features a statement on the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. This time, however, the text indicates that the purpose for this restoration is the possession of the remnant of Edom and all the nations that belong to the LORD. That is, Edom in some way stands as a representative here for all the Gentiles to be included in God’s kingdom.17 In the following text of Obad 1–14 the judgment of the nation of Edom is the central focus. Obadiah 15 puts this within the context of the Day of the LORD (Joel 2:2; Amos 5:18), setting the stage for the list in Obad 17–21 of terrorities to be possessed in God’s kingdom, including the mountain of Esau—or Edom (the root #ry [“possess”] occurs five times in this section; cf., Amos 9:12). It is little wonder then that Amos 9:11–12 becomes the key text in James’ speech at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The debate in Acts 15 has to do with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God and whether or not they must keep the Mosaic law (Acts 15:5). After presentations by Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, James steps in and quotes Amos 9:11–12 (Acts 15:16–17)—a move that apparently settles the issue for everyone. The believing Gentiles are indeed part of the people of God without the requirements of the Mosaic covenant. But James’ text of Amos 9:12 looks more like that of Codex Alexandrinus than that of the Masoretic Text: “in order that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord….” In place of w#ryy (“they may possess”), the Greek text reflects w#rdy (“they may seek”). In place of Mwd) (“Edom”), the Greek text reflects Md) (“Adam” or “mankind”). The Greek text interprets the object marker t) as the Lord— the aleph and the taw, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end (Isa 41:4; 44:6; Rev 1:8; 22:13). James’ text appears to be an accurate interpretation of the relationship between Amos 9:12 and Obad 17–21 in the original Hebrew text. The possession of the remnant of Edom means that the Gentiles will seek the LORD. The Greek text also picks up on the main verb from Hos 3:5 where it says that the children of Israel will “seek” (#qb instead of #rd) the LORD their God and David their king. It is now clear from Amos 9:12 that this future hope also involves the believing Gentiles.

Hosea

13

Jonah 2:1 (Eng., 1:17) and Matthew 12:40 Immediately after Amos and Obadiah in the composition of the Twelve, Jonah continues the theme of the inclusion of the Gentiles. What Edom was to Amos and Obadiah, Nineveh is to Jonah. Nineveh is “the great city” in Jon 1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11. Comparison with the use of this phrase in Gen 10:12 suggests that its meaning has more to do with importance in the Gentile world than with size. That is, the city of Nineveh is an appropriate candidate to represent the nations in Jonah. Throughout Jonah the faith of the Gentiles (Jon 1:16; 3:5; cf., Matt 8:5–13; 15:21–28) contrasts with the disobedience of the prophet (Jon 1:3; 4:2). Then in the final rhetorical question of Jon 4:11 God expresses his right to have compassion on the Gentiles. This stands in remarkable contrast to the only other biblical book that concludes with a rhetorical question—Nahum. In Nahum the city of Nineveh is not the representative of believing Gentiles but the representative of the unbelieving on whom judgment will come. Nahum 1:2–8 makes the scope of this judgment worldwide so that the historical destruction of Nineveh serves as a prefiguration of things to come. Once again the decisive contrast is not between Israel and the nations but between believers (Israelite and Gentile) and unbelievers (Israelite and Gentile). When the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign in Matt 12:38, he responds that none will be given except that of Jonah the prophet (Matt 12:39). Many have understood the sign of Jonah to be the following analogy between Jonah’s stay in the belly of the fish for three days and nights and that of the Son of Man in the heart of the earth for the same period of time (Matt 12:40).18 But the parallel pericope in Luke 11:29–32 also speaks of the sign of Jonah yet makes no reference to the three days and nights in the fish. What both texts share are the references to the Ninevites’ repentance at the preaching of Jonah and the response of the Queen of Sheba to the reports about Solomon’s wisdom (Matt 12:41–42; Luke 11:31–32). The Jews of Jesus’ day failed to do as well as the Gentiles in the days of Solomon and Jonah. Jesus was a greater wise man than Solomon and a greater preacher with a greater message than Jonah and yet his own people for the most part did not receive him. The sign of Jonah is thus identical to the message of the text of Jonah, an indictment against Israelite (and later Jewish) rejection of God’s plan in the midst of Gentile faith and inclusion.

14

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament Hosea 6:6 and Matthew 9:13; 12:7

Jesus quotes Hos 6:6a in two different contexts in Matthew. The first quote occurs at the end of the pericope about the calling of Matthew the tax collector in Matt 9:9–13. In this passage the Pharisees ask Jesus’ disciples why he eats with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus responds that only the sick have need of a doctor. He then tells them to learn Hos 6:6a and says that he has not come to call the righteous but sinners.19 The point of course is not that the Pharisees are righteous but that they are righteous in their own eyes. They too are sinners, but they have not recognized this fact in the way that some of the tax collectors and “sinners” have about themselves. The second quote appears in the conclusion to the pericope about the Sabbath law in Matt 12:1–8. Here the Pharisees point out to Jesus that his disciples are acting unlawfully in their plucking of grain on the Sabbath, a violation of the oral law (m. Sabb. 7:2). He then refers them to the story about David in 1 Sam 21:2–7 (Eng., 21:1–6) where David takes of the bread of the presence, which was reserved for the priests (Lev 24:5–9). He also appeals to Num 28:9–10 where priests are required to work on the Sabbath. Jesus is not necessarily defending David’s actions here. It would have sufficed to expose the fact that the Pharisees did not condemn David and yet were ready to condemn one who was greater than the temple and David, namely, the Son of Man, the Lord of the Sabbath. According to Jesus, the Pharisees would not have condemned his disciples if they had known the meaning of Hos 6:6a.20 Jesus’ quotations of Hos 6:6a are consistent with the original context (“I delight in mercy and not sacrifice”), although it is best to understand the Greek text of Matthew or the Septuagint in terms of the original Hebrew text. The use of e1leov (“mercy”) to translate dsx could be misleading. This Hebrew word is notoriously difficult to translate, but in many contexts— including this one—it has the sense of “covenant loyalty.” The parallel clause in Hos 6:6b adds, “And the knowledge of God rather than (or more than) burnt offerings.” The theme of the knowledge of God is particularly prominent in Hosea (Hos 2:22 [Eng., 2:20]; 4:1; 6:3; 8:2). This piece of instruction comes after the description of the people’s fickleness in Hos 6:4– 5 and precedes the statement on their transgression of the covenant in Hos 6:7. According to Jesus, a commitment to the law is insufficient apart from faithfulness and a right relationship to God. When the condition of the heart is pleasing to God, then the law can serve as a legitimate expression of worship (Ps 51:18–21 [Eng., 51:16–19]). The prophetic ambivalence toward

Hosea

15

the law is well known (e.g., 1 Sam 15:22–23; Isa 1:10–17; Jer 7:20–21; cf., Ps 40:7–9 [Eng., 40:6–8]; Heb 10:5–10). The law is good, but it is not good for the people in the sense that it does not produce faith and obedience (Ezek 20:25; cf., Rom 7:7–25). This is an important part of the message of the Twelve (Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; Mic 6:6–8). The prophets had seen the failure of the people to keep the law. It was not their intention simply to exhort them to try harder. Rather, they pointed the people beyond the law to the hope of the new covenant circumcision of the heart wrought by the Spirit of God (Deut 28:69 [Eng., 29:1]; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25 [Eng., 9:26]; 31:31–34; Ezek 11:19–20; 36:26–27). Such a theology of the law is in accord with a reading of the Pentateuch in its final form as a whole. Hans-Christoph Schmitt has provided valuable insight into the Glaubensthematik (“faith theme”) of the Pentateuch, which highlights the failure of the law.21 Schmitt observes five texts in particular— three before the giving of the law (Gen 15:6; Exod 4:31; 14:31) and two after (Num 14:11; 20:12)—that share similar terminology and pattern. The texts before the giving of the law all conclude with a positive evaluation of faith. Those after the Sinai account conclude with an indication of a lack of faith, leaving the reader with the impression that the law by itself does not produce faith and obedience. Most striking in this sequence is the contrast between Abraham (Gen 15:6; 26:5) and Moses (Num 20:12). Thus, the teaching of Jesus on the law and that of Paul on the relationship between faith and the works of the law (Rom and Gal) are consistent with their Bible.22 In fact, they understood the instruction about the law in the Hebrew Scriptures better than the legal experts of their day.

Hosea 10:8 and Luke 23:30 In Luke’s account of Jesus’ walk to the cross, the women following Jesus are mourning his suffering and imminent death (Luke 23:27). Jesus tells them not to weep for him but for themselves and for their children (Luke 23:28). He explains that days are coming when barren women will be considered blessed, whereas ordinarily they would be considered cursed (Luke 23:29). Jesus then says, “Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us’” (Luke 29:30). This quotation of Hos 10:8b in the Greek text is like that of Codex Alexandrinus with the sequence of the verbs in the opposite order of the sequence found in the Masoretic Text and in other witnesses to the Septuagint. Jesus explains himself in verse 31 with a rhetorical question, “If they do these things with the moist wood, what

16

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

should happen with the dry?”23 Jesus—and thus Luke—clearly understands Hos 10:8b in an eschatological sense (cf., Rev 6:16). The coming tribulation, not something from the past, will be greater than that of the present, so much so that the people will prefer death to life. In Hosea chapter 10 Israel faces judgment for her idolatry (Hos 10:1–4). This judgment involves the removal of all external means of worship and the removal of Israel’s king—a clear echo of the eschatological judgment that precedes ultimate restoration in the programmatic passage of Hos 3:4–5 (see again the phrase “at the end of the days” in Hos 3:5). Israel will go into exile to Assyria (Hos 10:5–7). Their places of sin will be destroyed, and they will seek the release of death (Hos 10:8). According to Hos 10:9–10, Israel has in fact sinned, and the LORD will discipline them. The people were supposed to sow righteousness and seek the LORD (Hos 10:11–12), but instead they have plowed wickedness and have not trusted in the LORD (Hos 10:13).24 Devastation is inevitable, and the king of Israel will be destroyed (Hos 10:14–15). According to Hos 3:5, the people will only seek the LORD “at the end of the days.” By presenting the threat of Assyrian exile through the lens of Hos 3:4–5, the author has made the historical circumstances of eighthcentury Israel into an occasion to speak of eschatological judgment and deliverance. This is after all the usual mode of operation in the prophetic texts. The historical situations of the prophets are the immediate contexts and springboards from which the texts are able to speak prefiguratively about the future. In Hosea, Assyria represents the enemies of God’s people. Assyria also plays this role in Isa 10:5–34 and 33:1–16. The eschatological content of Isa 10:20–34 makes the preceding historical woe against Assyria into an example of what God will do to his enemies in the future.25 Likewise the woes that follow the eschatology of Isa 24–27 in Isa 28–33 conclude with a woe apparently against the historical Assyria, but no explicit mention of Assyria occurs in Isa 33:1–16, making the text into a general oracle against the final enemy.26 Babylon takes on this function in the book of Isaiah as well (e.g., Isa 13–14). The symbolizing of Assyria has already been observed in a positive sense in Jonah (see above), but the negative representation is decidedly more prominent in the Twelve as a whole. Micah, for example, employs the eschatological passage of Mic 4:1–5 (cf., Isa 2:2–5) to orient the reader to the future work of God, thus setting up the Assyrian threat of the preceding chapters and the references to Assyria in the following chapters as figures in anticipation of things to come. The following text of Nahum then begins with a partial acrostic about worldwide, eschatological judgment (Nah 1:2–8) with the effect of making the account of the destruction of Nineveh into a picture of something much larger: the

Hosea

17

final judgment of the enemies of God. The theophany of Nah 1:2–8 and the eschatological appearance of God in Hab 3:3–15 then form an interpretive framework around the text of Nahum and Habakkuk, highlighting the coming of ultimate judgment and deliverance. Thus, the historical situation of Habakkuk also becomes an occasion to speak of the future and final work of God. It is noteworthy then that the foreign enemy of Hab 1:6 may in fact be the Assyrians, if the text of the Septuagint represents a conflated reading: “the Chaldeans, the warriors.” The original text may well have had “warriors” (Assyrians) to which a later scribe added the historical gloss “the Chaldeans.”

Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15 Hosea 11:1 follows the prophecy of the demise of the king of Israel in Hos 10:15 and uses the language of the exodus from the Pentateuch (e.g., Num 23:22; 24:8): “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” The text goes on to chide Israel for her idolatry and lack of appreciation for the LORD’s goodness (Hos 11:2–3). Israel will face judgment for this not in Egypt but in Assyria (Hos 11:4–7). The LORD, however, is not finished with Israel (Hos 11:8–9). He will heal her once again (Hos 14:5 [Eng., 14:4]). The crucial question of interpretation then is whether Hos 11:1 is merely a reference to the historical exodus (see the Septuagint [LXX] and Tg. Jon.) or rather a figure of things to come (i.e., a new exodus). Matthew 2:15 quotes Hos 11:1b as one of several fulfillment quotations in the opening chapters of the Gospel (Matt 1:23; 2:6, 18; 3:3; 4:15–16). Some interpreters see the return of Jesus’ family from Egypt after their flight from Herod as the intended fulfillment, while others prefer to view Herod as the new Pharaoh so that the flight to Egypt itself is the fulfillment. But it is important to note that Matt 2:15 uses the aorist passive subjunctive of plhro/w: “that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled….” Standard English translations give the impression that this event in the early years of Jesus was somehow the exhaustive fulfillment of a prophecy about a new exodus: “This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet…” (NRSV). But it is evident from the Greek text that Matthew understood Hos 11:1b in an eschatological sense. For Matthew, the flight to Egypt and the return were only the beginnings of messianic salvation—a hint of the future.

18

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

John Sailhamer An exchange of views on the citation of Hos 11:1b in Matt 2:15 appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) between John Sailhamer on the one hand and Dan McCartney and Peter Enns on the other.27 Sailhamer took his initial cue from Brevard Childs and Hos 3:5; 11:5; 12:11.28 According to Childs, Hos 3:5 provided an eschatological context for the reader’s understanding of Hosea 4–14 in the final redaction of the book. In Sailhamer’s view this has direct implications for the reading of Hos 11:1, which Hos 11:5 seems to understand in terms of a metaphor that speaks of the future (thus, Hos 12:11: “By means of the prophets, I spoke in parables”). Sailhamer points out the similarity between Childs’ understanding of a later redactional stage in the book and the sensus plenior approach to Matt 2:15. What many see in Matt 2:15 is already present in Hos 11:1. But Sailhamer wants to push this further to see if Hosea himself understood his reference to the exodus as a metaphor of the messianic future. Sailhamer outlines five points in order to make his case. To begin, he argues that the message of the book of Hosea as a whole has its basis in careful exegesis of the Pentateuch. For instance, Hos 4:2 appears to be an exegesis of the Ten Commandments in Exod 20:1–17. Likewise Hos 12:4–5 is a careful reading of the words of Gen 32:23–33, the story of Jacob’s wrestling.29 Sailhamer’s second point then is that the exodus event occurs as a messianic metaphor in the compositional strategy of the Pentateuch. Here Sailhamer refers to his own work on the poetic seams of the Pentateuch (Gen 49; Num 24; Deut 32), which interpret the narratives that precede them eschatologically. In particular he notes the relationship between Num 23:22a (“God brings them out of Egypt”) and Num 24:8a (“God brings him out of Egypt”). The reference to the historical exodus in Num 23:22a has become in Num 24:8a a figure for the new exodus led by the messianic king of Num 24:7–9 (cf., Num 24:9 and Gen 49:8–12; see the Septuagint of Num 24:7). This leads to Sailhamer’s final three points in which he states that Hosea had grounds to draw a messianic meaning from the Pentateuch itself. Thus, Matthew did not have to resort to typology in his quote of Hosea. Sailhamer also includes in a final footnote some indications that Matthew was reading Hosea in light of the Balaam oracles in Numbers 23 and 24. Prominent among these is the widely recognized connection between the narrative of the Magi seeking the star (Matt 2:1–11) and the messianic vision of the star in Num 24:17 (see Tg. Onk.).

Hosea

19

Dan McCartney and Peter Enns McCartney and Enns respond to Sailhamer with six points of their own. First, they contend that Hosea says nothing explicit about the Messiah. If he had wanted to, they suggest, he would have not done so in the “convoluted and mysterious” manner described by Sailhamer. It is not clear whether McCartney and Enns are talking about Hos 11:1b or Hosea as a whole. It would certainly be hard to deny the messianism of Hos 3:5.30 The question is whether or not the author intends Hos 3:5 to exert an influence on the reader’s understanding of Hos 11:1b. Also, it is not obvious to the present author what is so “convoluted and mysterious” about Sailhamer’s presentation. McCartney and Enns seem to require something here that would be more accessible to the modern reader, but the biblical authors often put their texts together and communicate their messages in ways that modern authors do not. This does not mean that their compositions are unintelligible. Rather, the force of following a biblical author’s clues through an entire composition is often greater than that of a single propositional statement. In their second point McCartney and Enns concede that the Pentateuch has an eschatological and messianic trajectory, but they argue that it is only possible to see this trajectory from the vantage point of the New Testament.31 Such a standpoint is difficult to reconcile with several New Testament statements that seem to assume the exact opposite. For instance, Jesus’ rebuke of the two men on the road to Emmaus presupposes that it was possible to understand the Christ and the gospel from Moses and the Prophets even before the resurrection (Luke 24:25–27). Otherwise his rebuke would have been entirely out of line. The same direction of thought occurs in Philip’s comment to Nathaniel: “We have found the one of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazareth” (John 1:45). He does not say, “We have found Jesus of Nazareth and now located him in Moses and the Prophets.” No, the assumption is that they knew the Christ from the Hebrew Scriptures and then identified him when he appeared as the historical Jesus of Nazareth (cf., Luke 1–2). The third point of McCartney and Enns is related to the second. Here they claim that Sailhamer’s comment about the “fully developed eschatology” of the Pentateuch “effectively flattens redemptive history” and makes later revelation such as that of the New Testament unnecessary. McCartney and Enns ask why it is so difficult for other readers to see what Sailhamer sees, if in fact Sailhamer is correct. Sailhamer actually answers this concern in the introduction to his article: “The most common approach to the meaning of the verse in Hosea is to view the fragmented sayings of the

20

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

book in light of a reconstructed life and message of the prophet. Such an approach has led to a deepening of the division between the OT and NT.” In other words, modern interpreters have confused historical events with textual meaning.32 This is evident in the article of McCartney and Enns in their equation of redemptive history with the revelation of the Scriptures. The reason so few modern interpreters fail to see what Sailhamer sees is the very fact that they have an entirely different object of study: redemptive history instead of the text itself. Nothing about Sailhamer’s approach makes the New Testament obsolete, but it does put the New Testament into perspective. The role of the New Testament is not to finish something that was half-baked in the Old, making the Hebrew Scriptures obsolete. Rather, the Gospels identify the historical Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah revealed in the Hebrew Bible (John 20:30– 31).33 Acts identifies the Spirit of Pentecost with the Spirit revealed in the Hebrew Bible. The Epistles and Revelation apply biblical theology of the Hebrew Scriptures to particular situations in local churches. Jesus, not the Greek New Testament, is the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures. He fits the portrait (not prediction, see 1 Pet 1:10–12) painted by the biblical authors. The fourth point of McCartney and Enns has two parts. First, they do their best to isolate Hos 11:1b from any connections to eschatological content within the same chapter or book. Second, they suggest that in Sailhamer’s approach Matthew is literalizing that which is a metaphor in Hosea. The problem with this point is the misreading of Matt 2:15 on the part of McCartney and Enns. Matthew does not refer to the flight to Egypt and the subsequent return as the literal, exhaustive fulfillment of Hos 11:1b (see the above discussion on the aorist passive subjunctive of plhro/w). Both Hosea and Matthew are looking forward to the new exodus. McCarney and Enns then accuse Sailhamer in their fifth point of neglecting the immediate context of Matthew, particularly the other quotations from the Old Testament. According to McCartney and Enns, “Neither Hosea nor Jeremiah nor Micah have any passage the literal meaning of which suggests that Messiah would recapitulate Israel’s history.” It is not clear whether this means Hosea, Jeremiah, and Micah in their entirety or the passages quoted from these books in Matthew. Certainly the “Messiah” is the new David in Hos 3:5; Jer 23:5–6; Mic 5:1–4a (Eng., 5:2–5a). How would this not be an example of recapitulation? McCartney and Enns do not mention Isaiah here, which is quoted twice in the opening chapters of Matthew and is replete with examples of recapitulation such as the Messiah

Hosea

21

(Isa 7:14; 9:5, 6 [Eng., 9;6, 7]; 11:1–10) leading the new exodus (Isa 11:11– 16). The sixth point is essentially the same as the second with further commentary. McCartney and Enns complain that Sailhamer “…has made the unfortunate but all too common mistake of treating the NT in isolation from its hermeneutical environment in Second Temple Judaism….” In their view, to say that Matthew is reading Hosea according to the literal sense is to “be enslaved to a hermeneutical assumption thrust upon us by the Enlightenment rationalism that insists that the Bible’s human meaning is its only meaning.” McCartney and Enns go on to suggest that the divine author’s meaning may be more than the human author’s. But according to authorities on the hermeneutics of Second Temple Judaism, the literal sense was indeed one way to read biblical texts.34 The reading of texts according to the literal sense did not begin with the Enlightenment. Furthermore, Sailhamer is well aware of the different hermeneutical methods in Second Temple Judaism, but he is making the point that these methods were already present within the text of the Hebrew Bible, so that to read the Hebrew Bible according to the literal sense was in fact to identify features such as figuration, gezera shawa, gematria, atbash, and so on.35 Thus, Matthew was not reading Hosea metaphorically, and Hosea was not reading the Pentateuch metaphorically. The new exodus metaphor was already an intended feature of the composition of the Pentateuch itself. Failure to see these techniques in the composition of the Hebrew Bible results in failure to see how the New Testament authors could have read their Bible literally and at the same time recognized patterns of prefiguration already present within the texts themselves. It seems that McCartney and Enns have a fundamentally different understanding of biblical inspiration from that of the classical Protestant formulation. For McCartney and Enns, the intention of the divine author is separable from that of the human authors.36 But for someone like the great Reformer Martin Luther, the meaning of the biblical author is the goal of interpretation. In Luther’s estimation it was ultimately necessary only to provide one meaning, the verbal meaning. The Holy Spirit guided the process. Therefore, no other sense than the literal sense was necessary.37 To be sure, Luther engaged in other hermeneutical approaches for practical purposes, but he did affirm that the Holy Spirit superintended the biblical authors in such way that what they wrote in their own styles was exactly what he wanted—nothing less and nothing more (cf., Deut 33:2–4; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21).38

22

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

McCartney and Enns recognize that their view of inspiration raises an important question: How is it possible to discern the divine author’s intention apart from the words intended by the human authors? Their answer is not particularly satisfactory. As noted and addressed above, McCartney and Enns see Christ as the new interpretive key providing the New Testament authors with some sort of divine warrant for eisegesis. Apart from the fact that the New Testament authors themselves seem to be completely unaware of this new hermeneutical axiom,39 McCartney and Enns have still not explained how it is possible to discern the divine author’s intention without grammar and syntax, word studies, compositional analysis, et cetera (i.e., human means). In a final surprising twist, McCartney and Enns conclude that Sailhamer’s argument is midrash. It is worth noting at this point that McCartney and Enns have dealt very little with Sailhamer’s exegetical remarks. It is almost as if they have been responding to a caricature of Sailhamer, and this is nowhere clearer than in this last charge. McCartney and Enns do not define what they mean by midrash, although the context would seem to suggest that they understand the term in the sense given it by modern scholarship: an actualizing type of exegesis.40 That Sailhamer’s argument is midrash in this sense has simply not been demonstrated.

Hosea 11:1b in the Book of the Twelve New exodus imagery is already a major part of the depiction of future restoration for the people of God in Hos 2:16–17 (Eng., 2:14–15): “Therefore, behold, I am enticing her, and I will walk her through the wilderness and speak to her heart. And I will give to her her vineyards from there and the valley of Achor for an opening of hope; and she will answer in that direction like the days of her youth and as when she came up from the land of Egypt.” The subsequent text of Hos 3:4–5 thus assumes that messianic salvation at the end of the days will involve a new exodus from a new kind of wilderness. According to the program of Hos 3:4–5, there will be a time without a king (Hos 3:4) followed by the days of the messianic king (Hos 3:5). The expectation then from Hos 2:16–17 (Eng., 2:14–15) and 3:4–5 is that the remainder of the book will interwine the wilderness imagery with the time of judgment and captivity without a king. Likewise the exodus imagery will mesh with the time of messianic salvation. That is, within the book of Hosea references to Israel’s past have already become prophecies of the future. The

Hosea

23

theme of the lack of a good king runs through Hos 7:3–7; 8:4; 10:3, 15; 13:10, 11. Parallel to this is the theme of the “return to Egypt” metaphor: Hos 8:13; 9:3; 11:5 (cf., Deut 28:68). Out of this judgment there will be a new exodus (Hos 11:1b, 11; cf., Num 23:22; 24:8) led by the new prophet like Moses (Hos 12:14; cf., Deut 18:18; 34:10).41 The LORD has been the people’s God since the land of Egypt, and there is no Savior for their future apart from him (Hos 13:4).42 The theme of the new exodus in the Twelve does not stop with Hosea. It is every bit as prominent in the composition of the Twelve as it is in Isaiah 40–55. The judgment section of Joel begins with a description of the Day of the LORD (Joel 1:4–2:17) in which the land changes from the Garden of Eden to a desolate wilderness without escape (Joel 2:3). This situation reverses in Joel 2:18ff with the expectation of a future remnant (Joel 3:5 [Eng., 2:32]). The concluding verses of Joel put this restoration in terms of a defeat of Israel’s historical enemies Egypt and Edom. God will lead his people in an eschatological act of deliverance similar to the way he led them from the land of Egypt. The new exodus theme surfaces in each of the subunits of Micah (Mic 1– 2; 3–5; 6–7). In the conclusion to the first subunit the LORD says that he will gather the remnant of his people like a flock (Mic 2:12). They will go out with their king crossing over before them and with the LORD as their leader (Mic 2:13; cf., Hos 3:5). According to the second subunit this will take place “at the end of the days” (Mic 4:1; cf., Hos 3:5) when the messianic king comes to lead his people like a shepherd (Mic 5:1–4a [Eng., 5:2–5a]; cf., Ezek 34:23–24). Micah then concludes with a more explicit reference to the new exodus: “Shepherd your people with your staff, the flock of your inheritance…Show us wonderful things like when you went forth from the land of Egypt” (Mic 7:14–15; cf., Mic 6:4). The eschatological theophanies of Nah 1:2–8 and Hab 3:3–15 feature language derived from the account of the exodus in the Pentateuch: “He rebukes the sea and dries it up, and lays waste all the rivers” (Nah 1:4a; cf., Exod 14:21–22). In Habakkuk the LORD is coming from the south (Hab 3:3) and appears to be angry with the sea (Hab 3:8). He goes out for the deliverance of his people and his anointed king (Hab 3:13a; cf., Num 23:22; 24:8). He treads through the sea (Hab 3:15). Nahum and Habakkuk call this a “day of distress” (Nah 1:7; Hab 3:16), which Zeph 1:15 identifies with the Day of the LORD. Zephaniah’s restoration section then picks up much of the language and imagery from the description of the new exodus in Micah (Zeph 3:9, 13, 18–20; cf., Mic 2:12; 4:1; 7:14; see also Hag 2:5–6).

24

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Zechariah also employs the language of ingathering and the new exodus with reference to the restoration of the people of God: “And I will return them from the land of Egypt, and from Assyria I will gather them” (Zech 10:10a; see also v. 11; cf., Isa 11:16; 43:16–17). Of course, from the perspective of this context the people are not actually in Egypt or Assyria (or Babylon for that matter). These historical enemies stand as figures for the present post-exilic situation from which the prophet looks forward to a new exodus.43 It is for this new work of redemption that the LORD’s “messenger” (K)lm) in Mal 3:1 will prepare the way (see Mal 3:23 [Eng., 4:5]; cf., Isa 40:3–5), much like the role of the “angel” (K)lm) in the original exodus (Exod 14:19; 23:20).

Hosea 13:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:55 It is possible to understand the Masoretic Text of Hos 13:14 in two different ways: (1) the LORD speaks of future redemption for his people and uses a figure of speech known as apostrophe to taunt the very death from which he will deliver them:44 “From the hand of Sheol I will redeem them, From death I will redeem them; Where are your plagues, O death? Where is your pestilence, O Sheol? Compassion is hidden from my eyes”; (2) the LORD questions the redemption of his people: “From the hand of Sheol will I redeem them? From death will I redeem them?….” The references to past salvation (Hos 13:4–5) and future salvation (Hos 14:2–9 [Eng., 1–8]) would seem to support the former, but the final clause of Hos 13:14 then appears out of place, although it is certainly not unusual for the prophets to mix words of restoration with words of judgment. The surrounding context of judgment would seem to support the latter view, but the interpretation of the apostrophe then becomes strained (a summons?). The Septuagint follows the first option: “From the hand of Hades I will deliver them, And from death I will redeem them; Where is your judgment (di/kh), O death? Where is your sting, O Hades? Compassion is hidden from my eyes.” This rendering reflects “your word” (Krbd; see Masoretic manuscripts) of judgment instead of “your plagues” (Kyrbd; see the Leningrad Codex). Paul’s quotation of this verse in 1 Cor 15:55 also favors the first option: “Where is your victory (ni=kov), O death? Where is your sting, O death?”45 This verse along with the eschatological text of Isa 25:8 will find fulfillment when the corruptible puts on incorruptibility and the mortal puts on immortality (i.e., the resurrection; 1 Cor 15:54). “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives to us the

Hosea

25

victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 15:56–57). The question is whether or not Paul’s quoted texts have the resurrection in view. Historically both Jewish and Christian interpreters have understood Isa 26:19 and Hos 6:2 to make significant contributions to the doctrine of the resurrection (cf., Ezek 37; Ps 49:16 [Eng., 49:15]).46 Only relatively recently has there been a tendency to view texts such as these in terms of hope in national restoration or deliverance from death rather than life beyond death.47 Most modern biblical theologians only concede Dan 12:2 to speak of a general resurrection in the Hebrew Bible. But what seems to be lacking from this more recent development is any explanation of how a message of national restoration or deliverance from death would have been relevant to the original readers. How would the hope of a renewed state of Israel in which the reader would not actually take part be of any comfort? What ultimate good would a delayed death have been? Is it not more reasonable to assume that the eschatological picture presented by the prophets was something to which the ancient readers were to look in order to live and die well? Is it not this very message of the prophets that serves as the basis for a text like Dan 12:2 (see Dan 3 and 6)? This was indeed the conclusion of Walther Eichrodt: For such a hope, however, focused as it was on the consummation of history, it was essential that in the establishment of the divine community those also should have their part who in the decisive crisis had fought in the front line. As they had witnessed to the living God right to the end, without thought for their own mortal danger, so that same God would not complete his kingdom without them. The conviction, amid the seemingly hopeless distresses of the time of persecution, that one was set in the last decisive moments before the final victory of the cause of God, and would receive from him the reward of either eternal acceptance or rejection, filled the historical moment with a final, absolute importance, and gave each individual combatant the sense of taking part with his whole existence in the world process now hastening to its goal. Here the prophetic view of history at last finds its full application to the life of the individual.48

It is thus very likely that Isa 26:19 should inform interpretation of Isa 25:8 and that Hos 6:2—however disingenuous the voice of the people may be— should inform interpretation of Hos 13:14. At the very least, it seems that such was the case for the apostle Paul.

26

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Notes 1 See Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 646–48, 665–66. 2 Paul’s use of “in Hosea” in the introduction to his quotations stands apart from other introductory formulae for quotations from the Twelve in the New Testament, which usually refer to “the prophets.” This particular formula probably respects Hosea’s position at the head of the Twelve (see also C. Burchard, “Römer 9:25: e0n tw|~ 9Wshe&,” ZNW 76 [1985]: 131). 3 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 613. The present text of Hosea also includes Judah within its scope (e.g., Hos 1:7). Critical scholars treat these references as interpolations, though they do so without textual evidence. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., n. 13. 6 Alberto Ferreiro, The Twelve Prophets, ACCS 14 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003), 6; see also Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 40–41. 7 John Calvin, Hosea, trans. John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries 8 (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 64. 8 C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 10 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 34. Keil is dependent upon Hengstenberg here. His view is also similar to that of John Chrysostom (Ferreira, The Twelve Prophets, 13). See Ezek 16:3. 9 J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC 5 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 458. 10 Targum Neofiti: “Rejoice before him, O peoples, Praise him, his people, the house of Israel.” 11 Samaritan Pentateuch and Latin Vulgate: “the land of his people”; Targums: “and his people.” 12 Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 41–43. 13 Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah, trans. James Martin, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 7 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 613–14. 14 See also Gen 41:45; Exod 2:21; 12:48; Lev 19:33–34; Num 12; Deut 7:3–4; 1 Kgs 11; Ezra 9–10; Ruth; Rom 3:8; 4:11, 12, 16; Gal 3:7. The New Testament authors do not define a gospel and then insist that the Hebrew Scriptures must conform. Rather, they see the revelation of the gospel in their Bible and then orient themselves to it appropriately. 15 Targum Jonathan has “and they will listen to the Messiah, the son of David, their king” in place of “David their king.” 16 John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 35– 37. 17 Idem, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 251. 18 E.g., Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 206. 19 The parallel accounts in Mark 2:13–17 and Luke 5:27–32 do not have the quote.

Hosea 20

27

The parallel accounts in Mark 2:23–28 and Luke 6:1–5 do not have the quote. Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie,” VT 32 (1982): 170–89. 22 See Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: B&H, 2009). 23 For the options on Luke 23:31 see Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 9:51–24:53, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1847. 24 James L. Mays makes a comparison here with the vineyard imagery of Isa 5:1–7 (Hosea, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 147). Hosea 10:1 probably alludes to that passage as well. It is noteworthy then that Isa 27:2–6 turns the imagery on its head so that the vineyard left for trampling (i.e., judgment) in Isa 5:1–7 becomes fruitful again in eschatological restoration. 25 According to Brevard S. Childs, Assyria is the “symbol of human arrogance” in Isa 10:5–19, and the passage in Isa 10:27b–34 is “a prophetic oracle, not a historical report” (Isaiah, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 93, 96). 26 “Crucial for the transmission process is the recognition that the prophetic voice has been extended to the next generation by means of its contextualized form within a written corpus of prophetic scripture” (ibid., 249). 27 John H. Sailhamer, “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” WTJ 63 (2001): 87–96; Dan McCartney and Peter Enns, “Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer,” WTJ 63 (2001): 97–105. 28 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 377–81. 29 Sailhamer also mentions Hos 6:7 as “a broadly based exegesis of the Genesis narratives,” although this is not as clear as his other examples. 30 Non-use of the term “Messiah” is beside the point. Such a term is simply a convenient way to refer to the ideal Davidic king. 31 They also say that what Sailhamer identifies as a metaphor for the new exodus in the Pentateuch is not the same as a prophecy of an event in the infancy of the Messiah. But this misses the point of Matt 2:15, which does not see the event as the fulfillment (see the above discussion on the use of plhro&w). 32 See Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). Words have meaning by virtue of their relationships with other words. Words interpret events. Modern interpreters have made themselves the interpreters of the events and have put their interpretations in the place of those offered by the texts themselves. 33 See D. A. Carson, “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 124 (2005): 693–714. 34 E.g., Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 14–18. 35 Sailhamer, Old Testament Theology, 298–311; see also Isac Leo Seeligmann, Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel, FAT 41 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1–30; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). 36 See Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005); Gregory K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008). 21

28

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament 37

Ludwig Diestel, Geschichte des alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche (Jena: Mauke’s Verlag, 1869), 246–47. See also J. A. Ernesti, Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti (Leipzig, 1761). 38 This is also the view of Sailhamer: “That the Bible has both a divine and a human origin does not mean that it has both a divine and a human purpose or intention. It does not mean that though the human authors may have meant one thing, God intended another. When the Bible speaks about its own origin as “inspired” Scripture (2Ti 3:16), it does not pit its human authors against its divine Author. On the contrary, its view is that the human authors were so moved by God to write that what they wrote was what God intended. As Peter puts it, ‘Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:21)’” (Pentateuch as Narrative, 3). Cf., Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 76–82. 39 It is ironic that McCartney and Enns require “explicit” messianism in Hos 11:1b from Sailhamer when they do not hold themselves to the same standard for the all-important interpretive key of Christ. Nowhere in the New Testament is this supposedly new key made explicit. 40 According to Jacob Neusner, however, the use of this term in antiquity was much broader: “‘Midrash’ then can be said to refer to study or research, while ‘exegesis’ speaks of the results of the search, the presentation of the meaning of the text. The two words then end up covering much of the same ground. ‘Midrash’ stands for a perfectly respectable, rulebound, rational, scholarly treatment of the text, as much as does ‘exegesis.’ But the words intersect over such a broad area that we are hardly required to use of foreign word when a native one serves perfectly well” (Introduction to Rabbinic Literature [New York: Doubleday, 1994], 225). 41 It is likely that the use of the past tense to translate the verbs of Hos 11:1 into English has contributed to a narrow historical interpretation. The Hebrew verb, however, is without tense. The context determines the tense suitable for translation. According to Diethelm Michel, the use of a qtl form in a parallel clause such as Hos 11:1b simply indicates an independent statement (Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen [Bonn: H. Bouvier u. Co., 1960]). 42 The use of the term “Savior” ((y#wm) in this context could be a link to Isa 19:20. The Septuagint version of Isa 19:20 in turn appears to have connections to the Septuagint of Num 24:7, 17 (see William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ [London: SCM, 1998], 44–45). 43 According to Brevard Childs, “the entire redemptive history of Israel repeats itself in the eschatological age. There is to be a redemption again from Egypt and a passing through the sea” (Myth and Reality in the OT [Naperville: Allenson, 1960], 76). 44 See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 905; Keil, Minor Prophets, 104. 45 See witnesses to the reading ni/kh in Joseph Ziegler, ed., Duodecim Prophetae, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XIII (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 178. Paul also uses ni=kov in his quote of Isa 25:8 (1 Cor 15:54) (see Theodotion, Codex Marchalianus, and the Syro-Hexapla). The plague of death or the judgment of death in Hos 13:14 would obviously mean the victory of death. Paul’s rendering of xcnl from Isa 25:8 is perhaps akin to the rendering ei)v te/lov (“to end”) in Symmachus. The phrase ei)v to\ te/lov is a common way to translate xcnml in Psalm superscriptions of the Septuagint, possibly with an eschatological sense (i.e., the one who endures “to the end” will overcome; see Hab 3:19; Rev 2:7, 11, 17; 3:5, 12, 21).

Hosea 46

29

See Ferreiro, The Twelve Prophets, 26–28; Steven A. McKinion, ed., Isaiah 1–39, ACCS 10 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 180–81; Targum Jonathan of Hos 6:2. For Ezekiel 37 see Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup, eds., Ezekiel, Daniel, ACCS 13 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008), 120–24. Note also Gerhard von Rad’s comment on Ps 49:16 (Eng., 49:15): “This statement can hardly be referred to anything other than a life after death, for the thought of the whole psalm revolves, in the sense of the problem of theodicy, around the question of the grace of Jahweh in the life of the individual, and comes to the conclusion that the proud rich must remain in death” (Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker [New York: Harper & Row, 1962], 406). See also Job 14:14; 19:26. 47 See Mays, Hosea, 95. 48 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 514–15.

Chapter Two Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

Joel 3:1–5 (Eng., 2:28–32) and Acts 2:17–21; Romans 10:13 Three questions emerge with the New Testament quotations from Joel 3:1–5 (Eng., 2:28–32). First, does Peter’s citation of this passage in Acts 2:17–21 indicate that Pentecost was an exhaustive fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy? Second, is the salvation of which Paul speaks in Rom 10:13 the same as that of which Joel speaks in Joel 3:5 (Eng., 2:32)? Third, if Peter assumes that the Spirit of Joel 3:1–5 (Eng., 2:28–32) is the same Spirit of Pentecost, what is the connection between Pentecost and the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible?1 In response to the first question, Luke’s placement of Peter’s speech in Acts 3:11–26 is decisive. There Peter says that “times of refreshing” are still yet to come from the Lord. Thus, while Pentecost was in some sense a fulfillment of the Joel passage, the ultimate Day of the LORD remains for the future. In response to the second question, there is no reason to think that salvation in Paul is different from salvation in Joel unless the reader creates a false dichotomy between physical deliverance and spiritual deliverance. Salvation in Joel and Paul is holistic. This is why the doctrine of a real, bodily resurrection is so central to biblical faith. In response to the third question, the Spirit is no stranger to the Book of the Twelve (e.g., Mic 2:7; 3:8; Hag 2:5; Zech 4:6; 6:8; 7:12; 12:10), but an adequate response here will require a more extensive discussion of the Spirit in the composition of the Hebrew Bible.2 James VanderKam argues in a 2004 essay that Jewish traditions about the Festival of Weeks exerted a great influence on Luke’s Pentecost account in Acts 2.3 In particular, VanderKam points out the remembrance of the Sinai covenant on this date (Exod 19:1–2), the use of Sinai imagery, and the contrast in early Christian Pentecost tradition between the gift of the law and the gift of the Spirit. VanderKam suggests in conclusion that other texts, such as Num 11:26–30, may have contributed to the shape of the narrative in the book of Acts. It seems that VanderKam and others have done well to lay the groundwork for further investigation into the role of the Festival of Weeks in

32

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Jewish and Christian tradition. His study also invites research into other possible Hebrew Bible antecedents of this relationship between the two gifts. The following discussion explores the parallel narratives of the Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 and compares them to the structure of Neh 9:6–31, which is in large part a reading of the Pentateuch. These texts appear to anticipate in some way the contrast between the law and the Spirit in the New Testament.

Parallel Narratives: Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 The final composition of the Pentateuch features an arrangement of parallel narratives on opposite sides of the Sinai account, making Sinai the center of the structure:4 Manna, quail (Exod 16:4–34) 40 years (Exod 16:35) Water from rock (Exod 17:1–7) Joshua is next leader (Exod 17:8–13) Battle with Amalek (Exod 17:14–16) [SINAI] Manna, quail (Num 11:4–34) 40 years (Num 14:21–22) Water from rock (Num 20:1–12) Eleazar is next priest (Num 20:23–29) Battle with Canaanites (Num 21:1–3) This kind of parallel structuring encourages the reader to see the theology of the Pentateuch primarily in terms of a message about Sinai. It also invites the reader to interpret the narratives in light of their respective parallels. The narratives about the LORD’s provision of food and water in Exodus 16 and 17 find well-known parallels in the wilderness stories of Numbers 11 and 20. According to the documentary hypothesis, Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 are respectively the P and JE versions of the manna/quail story. These two accounts differ not only in the way they tell the story but also in the way they conclude the story. Deuteronomy then offers yet another perspective that stresses the humility and dependence upon the LORD learned by the people (Deut 8:3).5

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

33

Both Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 begin with the grumbling of the people (Exod 16:2; Num 11:1). The Exodus 16 passage, however, pays much more attention to the provision of manna with only brief mention of the quail in Exod 16:13. Numbers 11, on the other hand, primarily has the quail in view and only speaks of the manna in Num 11:5–9. The purpose of the narrative in Exodus 16 is to set up the law of the Sabbath, the day on which the people were not to gather manna (Exod 16:23–30). But the Numbers 11 account features the LORD’s gift of the Spirit (Num 11:24–30) and concludes with judgment (Num 11:31–35). It is noteworthy that an encounter between Moses and the leaders immediately precedes the key moment in each passage. In Exod 16:22, just before Moses’ instruction about the Sabbath, the leaders of the congregation approach Moses and inform him that the people have gathered a double portion of food on the sixth day. It is as if the leaders expected Moses to rebuke the people for their disobedience to the command in Exod 16:16. Likewise in Num 11:27, a young man informs Moses that Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp. Joshua then requests that Moses restrain them (Num 11:28). But Moses responds with the hope that the LORD would give his Spirit to all the people. It appears that the replacement of the gift of the law (Sabbath) with the gift of the Spirit here is intentional, the Sabbath being the representative sign of the covenant of law (Exod 31:12–17). The point here is not that every story in which law is absent is automatically a story about the replacement of the law. Rather, this is an effort to appreciate the compositional function of the parallel narratives. It is possible to illustrate this in the following way: Murmuring (Exod 16:2) Quail (Exod 16:13) Manna (Exod 16:14–21) Moses and Leaders (Exod 16:22) SABBATH (Exod 16:23–30) Conclusion (Exod 16:31–36) Murmuring (Num 11:1) Manna (Num 11:5–9) Moses and Leaders (Num 11:28) SPIRIT (Num 11:29) Quail (Num 11:31–35) This observation requires further explanation of Num 11:24–30. In this passage Moses carries out the instruction of Num 11:16–17 to gather to

34

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

himself seventy elders (cf., Exod 24:1) and take them to the tent of meeting. The LORD says he will take from the Spirit that is upon Moses and give it to the elders so that they can help Moses bear the burden of the people (cf., Exod 18). When he does this in Num 11:25, the elders begin to prophesy. It is true that the hithpael of the verb “prophesy” sometimes indicates ecstatic behavior (e.g., 1 Sam 10:10–13; 19:24), but John Levison has rightly noted that the prophecy in this context is for purposes of leadership (cf., Num 12:6).6 Levison suggests that the use of the terms “rest” and “take” in Num 11:25 helps to define the nature of this prophecy more accurately (cf., Exod 24:11; Isa 11:2). The Spirit also rested on two men who remained in the camp—Eldad and Medad (Num 11:26). These two men then began to prophesy in the camp. The “Spirit” in this passage plays a very similar role to that of “the Spirit of God” elsewhere in the Pentateuch: Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:38) and Balaam’s prophecy (Num 24:2; cf., Gen 1:2; Exod 31:3; Dan 4:5, 15 [Eng., 4:8, 18]; 5:11, 14; Eph 5:18). Targum Neofiti offers an expansive commentary on Num 11:26 that brings the larger context of the Pentateuch to bear on its interpretation of the Hebrew: And two men were left in the camp. The name of one was Eldad, and the name of the second was Medad. And the Holy Spirit rested upon them. Eldad was prophesying and said, “Behold, quail came up from the sea and became a stumbling block to Israel.” And Medad was prophesying and said, “Behold, Moses the prophet is being taken away from the midst of the camp, and Joshua the son of Nun is serving in his leadership position after him.” And the two of them were prophesying as one and saying, “At the end of the days, Gog and Magog will come up to Jerusalem, and into the hands of King Messiah they will fall. And for seven years the sons of Israel will have fuel for a fire from the weapons so that they need not go out to the forest for wood.” And they were from the seventy wise men who were set apart. And the seventy wise men did not go out from the camp while Eldad and Medad were prophesying in the camp (author’s translation).

Neofiti presents Eldad and Medad as members of the seventy “wise men” (not “elders”). It also identifies the Spirit that rested upon them as the Holy Spirit (cf., Isa 63:10). Neofiti understands the prophecy of this passage to be verbal and not behavioral, providing individual prophecies and then a prophecy that the two men speak together. Eldad’s prophecy is more or less a summary of the quail story. Medad’s prophecy, on the other hand, looks forward to the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua. It interprets the extraction of the Spirit from Moses as the removal of Moses from the camp. This take on the transfer of leadership is quite insightful given the fact that the appointment of Joshua in Num 27:15–23 describes Joshua as one

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

35

who has the Spirit within him (Num 27:18). Joshua, however, turns out not to be the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18) but a wise man. The reference to his appointment in Deut 34:9 identifies the Spirit within him as the Spirit of wisdom. Never again did a prophet arise in Israel like Moses (Deut 34:10).7 The transfer of leadership is from the prophet-lawgiver to the Spiritfilled wise man. When Eldad and Medad prophesy together, their attention turns toward the eschatological and messianic future. The phrase “at the end of the days” ties their words to the major poetic texts of the Pentateuch (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 31:29).8 The title “King Messiah” occurs within these same poetic texts in the renderings of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti (Gen 49:1, 10–12; Num 23:21; 24:20, 24). Targum Onkelos names the Messiah as King in Gen 49:10 and Num 24:17. In other words, Targum Neofiti links the Spirit of prophecy in Num 11:26 with the prophetic outlook of the pentateuchal poems. Noteworthy of comparison here are the key prophetic texts that employ the phrase “at the end of the days” (Isa 2:2; Jer 30:24; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Dan 2:28; 10:14) and speak of a future Davidic king (Hos 3:5). At first glance the reference to Gog and Magog looks like an attempt to bring the eschatology of Ezekiel 38–39 to bear on the prophecy of Eldad and Medad (cf., Ezek 39:9–10). But with such strong connections to the poems of the Pentateuch, it seems likely that the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Num 24:7 is also in view: “A man will go out from his seed and rule over many nations, and his kingdom will be exalted higher than Gog, and his kingdom will be increased.” The Masoretic Text has historicized this verse with the name “Agag” (1 Sam 15) in place of “Gog.” According to William Horbury, the Septuagint of Num 24:7 not only adds messianic value to the text but also has the effect of combining the Pentateuch and the Prophets with the identification of the “man” as the victor over Ezekiel’s Gog.9

Nehemiah 9 The text of Nehemiah 8 and 9 comes at a critical moment in the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah. It follows the list of former returnees in Nehemiah 7 repeated from Ezra 2. After the first occurrence of the list in Ezra 2, the text indicates that the post-exilic community under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua began to reestablish the sacrificial cult (Ezra 3). Following the second occurrence in Nehemiah 7, chapters 8 and 9 reveal a new focus on the reading and interpretation of Scripture (Neh 8–9). Within this fundamental

36

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

shift from the Temple setting to what would become the synagogue setting is a redefinition of the role of the priest (Ezra) from that of a cultic functionary to that of a teacher of Scripture (Ezra 7:6, 10; cf., Deut 33:10). This is not to say that Ezra had no interest in the priestly law. It is simply to point out that the scope of Ezra’s reading in Nehemiah 8–9 is much larger than any law code. His reading begins with the creation account and runs through the narrative of the Pentateuch (Neh 9:6–31). Such a shift away from the law proper is also manifest in the structure of Nehemiah 9:6–31, only to see a return to the law and the failure of the people to keep it in Nehemiah 10–13. Nehemiah 9 is one of several summaries of biblical history in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:1–15; Ezek 20; Pss 78, 105, 106, 136; cf., Acts 7:1–53; 13:16–41; Heb 11). These do not merely rehearse the history of ancient Israel. They provide interpretations of the biblical texts on which they depend. It is worth noting that the one common element in all of these summaries is the exodus and not the law. In fact, the positive reference to the law in Neh 9:13–14 is an exception to the generally silent or negative treatment of the law elsewhere. In his commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah, H. G. M. Williamson laments the fact that other commentators have not recognized the structure of Neh 9:12– 21.10 This is the section on the wilderness that follows creation (Neh 9:6), the patriarchs (Neh 9:7–8), and the exodus (Neh 9:9–11). While in general agreement with Williamson, the present study has identified a slightly different set of parallels extending from verse 12 through verse 31 as follows: Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire (Neh 9:12) Gift of the LAW (Neh 9:13–14) Bread and Water (Neh 9:15a) Land Possession (Neh 9:15b) Rebellion (Neh 9:16–18) Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire (Neh 9:19) Gift of the SPIRIT (Neh 9:20a) Bread and Water (Neh 9:20b) Land Possession (Neh 9:24) Rebellion (Neh 9:26–31) Williamson comments that Neh 9:15b does not find recapitulation in the parallel, but this is only because he does not extend the unit further to Neh 9:24. He also suggests that the gift of the law (Neh 9:13–14) finds recapitulation in Neh 9:20a by means of the infinitive “to make them wise,”

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

37

which elsewhere according to Williamson refers to study and practice of the law (Josh 1:8). But this suggestion is questionable given the use of the copulative at the beginning of Josh 1:8 in the Septuagint, which appears to make a distinction between the law proper in Josh 1:7 and the book of the law (the Torah or Pentateuch) in Josh 1:8. The structure as a whole sets up a contrast between the rebelliousness of the people and the faithfulness of God (cf., Ezek 20; Ps 78; Acts 7). It points to the pattern of law added because of transgression in the Pentateuch with particular reference to the golden calf episode of Exodus 32. The rebellion in the first sequence of Neh 9:12–18 is specifically a rebellion against the law: “they did not obey your commands” (Neh 9:16b). This is also a part of the rebellion in the parallel sequence (Neh 9:26, 29), but this time the rebellion extends to a rejection of the Spirit and the prophets (Neh 9:30). Similar evaluations of the people appear elsewhere in the reflections on the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:13–14) and southern kingdom (Jer 25:4), the exilic and post-exilic prayers of Dan 9:10 and Ezra 9:10–11, and in the first-century speech of Stephen (Acts 7:51–53) with reference to the people of his own day. But the real interchange in the structure of Neh 9:6–31 is between the gift of the law (Neh 9:13–15) and the gift of the Spirit (Neh 9:20a; cf., Ps 143:10b). C. F. Keil for one saw Neh 9:20a not as a reference to Josh 1:8 but as a reference to Num 11:24–30.11 Following both gifts then is mention of bread from heaven or manna (Neh 9:15, 20b). This sequence in particular seems to be influential for John 6:22–71. In John 6:31, Jesus cites a biblical text that speaks of the bread from heaven that the fathers ate. Martinus Menken argues that the wording of Ps 78:24 fits the citation most closely, but the larger context of John 6 has more in common with Neh 9:20, which speaks of the Spirit.12 Jesus states that the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (John 6:33). He subsequently declares that he is the bread of life (John 6:35). But much later in the chapter Jesus teaches that the Spirit is the one who gives life (John 6:63). According to John’s Gospel, Jesus—who stands in the place of Moses and the law (John 1:17)—will return to the Father, but when he goes he will send the Spirit in his place (John 16:5–11). The evidence seems to suggest that a precedent of some sort exists within the Hebrew Bible itself for the New Testament view of the Spirit in relationship to the law, especially with regard to the account of Pentecost in Acts. These texts communicate this relationship in an implicit manner according to the narrative shape itself.13 Explicit statements that contrast the law and the Spirit appear in the writings of Paul: “But now we have been

38

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

delivered from the law, having died to that by which we were held, so that we serve in newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter” (Rom 7:6). According to Paul, the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit (Rom 8:4). Thus, in some way the Spirit stands in the place of the law. In Paul’s view, Christians are ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of Spirit (2 Cor 3:6).

Amos 5:25–27 and Acts 7:42–43 The text of Amos 5:25–27 comes on the tail end of a woe oracle to those who desire the Day of the LORD (Amos 5:18–20) and who have failed to combine justice and righteousness with their external expressions of worship (Amos 5:21–24). Amos shares Joel’s view of the Day of the LORD (Joel 2:2) and Hosea’s view of sacrifice and burnt offerings (Hos 6:6). It is also apparent from the final few verses of this passage that Amos denounces idolatry in a manner similar to that of the prophets in general (Exod 20:2–6; Deut 5:6–10). This text is thus somewhat of a paradigmatic word of judgment that transcends the historical situation of Amos. It is in this way that Stephen understands and quotes Amos. It is possible to interpret Amos 5:25 either as a statement or a question, though most take it in the form of a question:14 “Did you draw near to me sacrifices and offering in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel?” If it is a question, it most likely expects a negative answer, as does the Septuagint. Some take this to mean that sacrifices were initially not part of the people’s relationship with the LORD and thus not essential in the same way that the justice and righteousness of Amos 5:24 were (cf., Deut 32:10– 12; Jer 2:1–3; 7:21–23; Hos 2:16–17 [Eng., 2:14–15]).15 It is then possible to interpret Amos 5:26 in two ways: (1) as a second part to the question of Amos 5:25 (“And did you lift up…?”) indicating that Israel in the wilderness did not have the same problem with idols as in the time of Amos or (2) as part of the announcement of judgment in Amos 5:27 (“You will lift up…”).16 Others understand this to be an indictment against the people for their disobedience to the law in the wilderness.17 It is still possible in this view to interpret Amos 5:26 as part of the announcement of judgment in Amos 5:27, but it is also possible to read Amos 5:26 as an adversative statement. That is, the people did not offer sacrifices to the LORD (Amos 5:25), but they did offer them to idols (Amos 5:26; cf., Lev 17:7; Num 25:1–3). Thus, Israel’s situation in the time of Amos (Amos 5:5; 8:14; cf., 1 Kgs 12:28–30) was virtually the same as that of Israel during the wilderness wanderings. Amos

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

39

sees a certain solidarity here between Israel past and Israel present. It is not as if Israel present is paying for the sins of Israel past. Rather, Israel present has continued in the sins of Israel past. The people had no problem offering sacrifices (Amos 5:21–24). Their trouble came with offering sacrifices rightly. This also seems to be Stephen’s point when he connects the idolatry of the golden calf incident (Exod 32; Deut 9) with his quote of Amos 5:25– 27 (Acts 7:39–43). From the perspective of Stephen, Israel has struggled with idolatry from Sinai to the present day (cf., Deut 9:24; Jer 32:30). There are also two basic ways to interpret Amos 5:26. First, it is possible to see here a reference to the Mesopotamian gods Sakkuth and Kayamanu. (The Masoretes have vocalized twks and Nwyk after the pattern of Cwq# [“detested thing”].)18 According to this view, the words “your king” and “your images” are in apposition to Sakkuth and Kayamanu respectively. One difficulty with this interpretation is the placement of the plural noun “images” in apposition to the singular noun Nwyk. It is also problematic that the early interpretations of this passage in the Septuagint, the Damascus Document, and the New Testament do not understand the text this way. The other option is to read twks as “booths” or “tents” and Nwyk from Nwk (“establish”) in the sense of “pedestal” (i.e., “foundation”) or “shrine.” These would then be in the construct state: “the tents of your king and the shrine of your images.” Amos 5:26b is the explanation of this: “the star of your god(s) which you have made for yourselves.” Israel has made a star the object of its worship (see Deut 4:19). This interpretation is somewhat similar to that of the Septuagint: “And you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Raifan, their images which you made for yourselves.” The Septuagint has the singular “tent” and the god “Moloch” or “Molech” (Klm) instead of “your king” (Mkklm) (cf., Lev 18:21). It puts “the star of your god” in front of Raifan, which is in apposition. The word “images” refers to the tent and the star. The Damascus Document (CD VII, 14–21) reads “the tents of your king and the foundation of your images” in its interpretation: “I will exile the tents of your king and the foundation of your images beyond the tents of Damascus [or, from my tent to Damascus].” The books of the Law are the tents of the king, as it says, “I will raise the fallen tent of David” [see Amos 9:11]. The king is the leader of the nation. The “foundation of your images” stands for the books of the prophets whose words Israel despised. The star is the interpreter of the Law who comes to Damascus, as it is written, “A star has left Jacob, a staff has risen from Israel” [see Num 24:17]. The latter is the leader of the whole nation. When he appears, he will shatter all the sons of Sheth.

40

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

It is hard to imagine how the names of Mesopotamian gods would fit into this reading. According to the Damascus Document, Amos 5:26–27 speaks of a removal of the Law and the Prophets beyond or to Damascus. Most interpreters understand this to mean that the faithful will escape to the north, although this is not the only possibility. Stephen’s quote of Amos 5:25–27 comes toward the end of an exposition of biblical history in response to accusations of slander against Moses, God, and the temple (Acts 6:8–15). He begins with Abraham and the other patriarchs (Acts 7:1–8) and works his way through the Joseph story (Acts 7:9–16). His treatment of the life of Moses (Acts 7:17–38) is entirely positive until Mount Sinai where the forefathers were disobedient and offered a sacrifice to the idol (Acts 7:39–41). God gave them over to worship the host of heaven according to Amos 5:25–27 (Acts 7:42–43; cf., Rom 1:24–32). Stephen’s use of “tent” (skhnh/) in his quote of Amos 5:26 creates a link with “the tent of the testimony” in Acts 7:44 and with the “dwelling place” (skh/nwma) that David requested to find in Acts 7:46. His reference to Solomon’s temple is not a slur but a balanced perspective rooted in the text of Isa 66:1–2 (Acts 7:49–50; cf., 1 Kgs 8:27; Jer 7:4; Ps 11:4). He then calls his accusers stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart. They are the ones who have rejected the Holy Spirit and the prophets and failed to keep the law (Acts 7:51–53). This same assessment of the people occurs in the Pentateuch (Exod 32:9; Deut 29:3 [Eng., 29:4]), the Prophets (2 Kgs 17:13–14; Isa 63:10; Jer 4:4; 25:4; Ezek 2:4; 3:7), and the Writings (Pss 78:22, 32; 106:24; Neh 9:16–18, 29–31). Stephen simply identified in his own day what many had already seen before.

Amos 9:11–12, Obadiah, and Jonah 2:1 (Eng., 1:17) A discussion of these texts and their relationships to Acts 15:16–17 and Matt 12:40 already appears under the treatment of Hos 2:1, 25 (Eng., 1:10; 2:23) and Rom 9:25–26 in the first chapter. No additional commentary is necessary here.

Micah 5:1 (Eng., 5:2) and Matthew 2:6 The prophet Micah certainly spoke from the context of his eighth-century setting (Mic 1:2), but the book of Micah within the composition of the Twelve has made Micah’s historical situation into an occasion to speak of

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

41

the eschatological and messianic future. This is nowhere clearer than in the placement of the prophecy about “the end of the days” in Mic 4:1–5 (cf., Isa 2:2–5; Hos 3:5) directly after the mid-point of the Book of the Twelve in Mic 3:12 (see Masora parva), followed by the repeated use of the phrase “in that day” (Mic 4:6; 5:9 [Eng., 5:10]). Thus, early Jewish (Tg. Jon. Mic 5:2 [cf., 4:8]; b. Yoma 10a; b. Sanh. 98b; Rashi) and Christian interpreters understood the prophecy in Mic 5:1–4a (Eng., 5:2–5a) to be eschatological and messianic (see John 7:42).19 According to Craig Blomberg, the quotation of Mic 5:1 (Eng., 5:2) in Matt 2:6 “can be viewed via a very straightforward scheme of prediction and fulfillment, with no multiple or deeper levels of meaning or use of typology.”20 When Herod inquires about the birthplace of the Messiah in Matt 2:4, the chief priests and scribes respond without hesitation, “In Bethlehem of Judea” (Matt 2:5). It is not clear then whether the quotation from Mic 5:1 (Eng., 5:2) is part of their response or a comment on their response by Matthew himself. In favor of the former is the lack of a formal “fulfillment” introduction used by Matthew elsewhere (Matt 1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; but 3:3). In favor of the latter is Matthew’s use of biblical texts to explain the narratives of chapters 1–4. Matthew’s text of Mic 5:1 (Eng., 5:2) differs from the other extant textual witnesses. Whereas the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and Targum Jonathan all describe Bethlehem as “too little [or insignificant] to be among the tribes of Judah,” Matthew’s text says that Bethlehem is “by no means least among the rulers of Judah.” The point of the Masoretic Text seems to be that the Messiah will come from a seemingly insignificant place to be the greatest ruler of all. Matthew’s text indicates that this very fact makes Bethlehem significant. Matthew’s Greek text also features a wordplay that does not appear in the extant Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic witnesses: Bethlehem is “by no means least among ‘the rulers’ (toi=v h9gemo&sin),” and from Bethlehem “will go forth a ‘ruler’ (h9gou/menov).” The last part of Matthew’s text—“who will shepherd my people Israel”—takes its cue from Mic 5:3 (Eng., 5:4) and draws upon 2 Sam 5:2 and 1 Chr 11:2. It is possible that Matthew’s text is an ad hoc rendering, but it is also possible that Matthew preserves the text of an ancient Greek version. The evidence suggests that different Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures may have existed in Matthew’s time, versions no longer extant.21 The Letter of Aristeas 30, 314 (c. 100 B.C.) shows awareness of earlier Greek translations in addition to the one for which the letter gives an account. Early, pre-Christian fragments of the Greek Bible include Papyrus Greek 458 of the John Rylands Library, Papyrus Fouad 266, and the Greek Minor

42

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (also fragments from Qumran caves 4 and 7). Whether or not different Greek versions represent different Hebrew texts is another matter. Micah’s depiction of the ideal Davidic king (see 1 Sam 16:1) is consistent with that of the Twelve and with that of the Prophets in general. He will lead his people like a shepherd (Ezek 34:23; Mic 5:3 [Eng., 5:4]). His greatness and kingdom will extend to the ends of the earth (Mic 5:3 [Eng., 5:4]; Zech 9:9–10; Ps 72:8). He will bring peace to the world (Isa 9:5– 6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; Mic 5:4 [Eng., 5:5]; Zech 9:9–10). There is no reason to think that Matthew took Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem or his earthly ministry to be an exhaustive fulfillment of this prophecy. In fact, there is every reason to think that the New Testament authors understood Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection to be the firstfruits of the messianic kingdom to which the Hebrew Scriptures ultimately look.

Micah 7:6 and Matthew 10:35–36 The final section of Micah (Mic 6–7) begins with a general address in Mic 6:1a (cf., Mic 1:2; 3:1) followed by a summons to the mountains and hills to hear the LORD’s contention with his people (Mic 6:1b–2; cf., Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2). The LORD has been faithful (Mic 6:3–5), but his people have not done what he seeks from them (Mic 6:6–8). Their lack of justice (Mic 6:9–13) has led to judgment (Mic 6:14–15). The people of Judah have walked in the ways of the northern dynasty of Omri (Mic 6:16). The faithful perish (Mic 7:1–4; cf., Isa 57:1). Not even a friend or a family member is trustworthy in these troubled times, but the LORD is (Mic 7:5–7; cf., Deut 13:7–12 [Eng., 13:6–11]). It is clear from what follows that Micah has eschatological tribulation in view followed by ultimate restoration (see Tg. Jon. Mic 7:6). The rabbinic literature understands Mic 7:6 to be a description of relationships in the days of the Messiah (b. Sanh. 97a; m. Sot@ah 9:15; b. Sot@ah 49b; Midr. Song 2:13). Micah dwells in darkness, but he trusts that the LORD will bring him to the light (Mic 7:8–10; cf., Isa 9:1–6 [Eng., 9:2–7]).22 His enemies will not triumph over him. Rather, all the nations will come to the LORD at Mount Zion (Mic 7:11–13; cf., Isa 2:2–5; 19:25; 66:18–24; Zech 9:10; Ps 72:8). In the end the LORD will lead his people in a new exodus (Mic 7:14–20). The link between the end of Micah (Mic 7:18–20) and the beginning of Nahum (Nah 1:2–8) carries this further (see Exod 34:6–7). In the worldwide eschatological judgment of Nah 1:2–8—for which the destruction of Nineveh

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah

43

is a figure in the remainder of the book—the LORD is the only refuge (Nah 1:7; cf., Hab 3:16; Zeph 1:7, 15; 3:9–20). According to the conclusion to the Book of the Twelve, the eschatological prophet like Elijah is the one who will restore the broken relationships of Mic 7:6, returning the hearts of the fathers to the sons and the hearts of the sons to the fathers (Mal 3:23–24 [Eng., 4:5–6]; Luke 1:17). Matthew 10 is Jesus’ second major discourse in the Gospel of Matthew. He commissions the twelve to proclaim the kingdom of heaven (Matt 10:1– 15) and then warns them of coming post-resurrection persecution (Matt 10:16–25). They are not to fear men during this time of tribulation, but they are to confess Christ (Matt 10:26–33). The gospel will be divisive—even within the family—due to the fact that not all will embrace the peace Christ brings (Matt 10:34–39; cf., 12:46–50). It is within this context that Jesus quotes Mic 7:6, accomodating the wording to the flow of his discourse.23 Christ’s followers must love him more than family (see Exod 32:26–29; Deut 33:9).

44

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Notes 1

The New Testament authors do not understand the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible only in terms of the power of God or the spirit of prophecy. Nevertheless, modern theologians tend to make a distinction between the revelation of the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and that in the New Testament: “In the OT, the Spirit is ‘personal’ only in the sense that rûah is the selfmanifesting activity of God himself, the extension of his personal vitality. The phrase ‘Spirit of the Lord’ is thus a synecdoche for God himself in action (cf. ‘hand’, ‘finger’, ‘arm’ of the Lord). But the NT modifies this understanding in a trinitarian direction. The Son may petition the Father to send the Spirit (John 14:16, 26), but he also commissions the Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7; cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33) as the ‘Spirit of Jesus/Christ’” (M. Turner, “Holy Spirit,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000], 558). But this differs very little from a text like Isa 42:1 where God the Father (Isa 63:16) puts his Spirit upon the messianic servant of the LORD (Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; 11:1–10). Furthermore, Turner’s analogy with certain anthropomorphisms does not work very well given the fact that God never “pours out” (Joel 3:1 [Eng., 2:28]) or “gives” (Neh 9:20) his hand, finger, or arm to anyone. The New Testament authors describe the Spirit as “personal” with specific language drawn from the Hebrew Bible itself (e.g., Isa 63:10 and Eph 4:30; Ezek 11:19–20 [36:26–27] and 2 Cor 3:3). 2 See R. Albertz and C. Westermann, “xAw%r rûah spirit,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, vol. 3, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 1218–1220; Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 260–62; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 59. 3 James C. VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. C. A. Evans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 185–205. 4 John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 278. 5 See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 271–304. 6 John R. Levison, “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of Ecstatic Elders,” CBQ 65 (2003): 503–21. 7 See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 86–87. 8 See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch, 35–37; Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 209–12. 9 William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998), 29. It is noteworthy that the Pentecost account of Acts 2 also highlights the role of prophecy in the gift of the Spirit with its quotation of Joel 2:28–32 (Eng., 3:1–5; Acts 2:17–21; cf., Isa 59:21). As noted above, Acts 3:20 then looks forward to eschatological “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:20). 10 H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 313–14. 11 C. F. Keil, Nehemiah, trans. Sophia Taylor, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 152–53.

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah 12

45

Martinus J. Menken, “The Provenance and Meaning of the Old Testament Quotation in John 6:31,” NT 30 (1988): 39–56. 13 “In the majority of cases neither themes nor ideas are stated explicitly. They are implied in the narrative and have to be abstracted by interpretation” (S. Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 [1980]: 169). 14 A prefixed h followed by daghesh forte is normally a definite article, but it can be an interrogative marker (E. F. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2d ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1910], 296). 15 According to Douglas Stuart, “The sacrificial system was essentially predesigned for a coming era of normal food production in a landed, settled situation” (Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987], 355). He contends that Lev 9:8–24 is merely inaugural. This does not explain, however, the purpose of the moveable structure of the tabernacle. 16 See Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 519–42. 17 John Calvin, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, trans. John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries 14 (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 293–96; C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 10 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 194–95. 18 S. M. Paul, Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991), 195–96. 19 Ferreiro, The Twelve Prophets, 163–67. 20 Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 7. 21 See Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2d ed. (New York: Praeger, 1960), 209–64. Quotes from the Bible in the New Testament, Josephus, and Philo often differ from extant witnesses. 22 See D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), 292. 23 Jesus uses “man” (#n rb) instead of “son” ()rb); cf., Luke 12:53; 14:26.

Chapter Three Nahum through Malachi

Habakkuk 1:5 and Acts 13:41 Paul’s speech at Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13:16–41 is one of several key speeches in the composition of Acts in which the revelation of the Hebrew Scriptures is the focal point (Acts 2:14–36; 3:12–26; 7:2–53).1 It comes at the request of the synagogue leaders after the reading of the Law and the Prophets (Acts 13:15). Paul begins in Acts 3:17 with the election of the fathers (cf., Neh 9:7) and the exodus. He moves quickly through the wilderness (Acts 13:18), the land (Acts 13:19), and the period from the judges through Samuel and Saul (Acts 13:20–21). Paul then makes the genealogical connection from David to Jesus, speaking also of John’s preparatory ministry (Acts 13:22–25). He revisits this link in Acts 13:32–37, but in between there is an application: the Jews have neither recognized their own Savior nor understood their own Scripture (Acts 13:26–27, 29; cf., 2 Cor 3:15). Paul goes on to speak of Pilate, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the post-resurrection appearances (Acts 13:28–31). He then promptly returns to Scripture in Acts 13:32–41 (Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3; Ps 16:10). According to Paul, the Son of David is clearly greater than David himself due to the fact that he is also the resurrected Son of God. Paul concludes his speech with a call to faith from Hab 1:5 (Acts 13:41). When Paul and Barnabas then speak on the following Sabbath at the request of the people (Acts 13:42–47), the Gentiles believe (Acts 13:47–48; Isa 49:6). The quote of Hab 1:5 does not really follow the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint, although it does have important points of contact with the Septuagint. Both Acts 13:41 and the Septuagint begin with “Look, you scoffers” instead of “Look among the nations” (MT). This probably reflects a more original Hebrew text: Mydgb (“unfaithful ones”) instead of Mywgb (“among the nations”). It is likely that a scribe softened the text for the readers. Acts 13:41 does not have “and see” from the Masoretic Text (w+ybhw) and the Septuagint (kai\ e0pible/yate). The Septuagint then apparently misunderstands whmt whmthw (qauma&sate qauma&sia). Acts

48

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

13:41 simply omits the second of the two imperatives. Both Acts 13:41 and the Septuagint add the imperative a0fani/sqhte. But more importantly both texts add the pronoun “I” in “for I am working a work in your days” under the assumption that God is the speaker in Hab 1:5, which is not necessarily the case.2 Both texts turn the final clause of Hab 1:5 into a relative clause (Acts 13:41 adds e1rgon and u9mi=n). It is clear that Paul does not understand the verb “believe” in Hab 1:5 in a secular sense in which disbelief is equivalent to astonishment. Rather, he intends to call his hearers to repentance and justification by faith (Acts 13:38–39). The question remains, however, why Paul would quote Hab 1:5 in a speech about faith in the Messiah. Most scholars assume that the scope of Habakkuk is limited to the Babylonian invasion. But the description of the historical enemy in Hab 1:6–11 and the woes pronounced upon the enemy in Hab 2:5–20 are only part of the message of Habakkuk.3 The historical work of God prefigures the future work of God (Hab 2:2–4). The work of God to which Hab 3:2 refers is an eschatological theophany (Hab 3:3–15) in which God delivers his people and his anointed one (Hab 3:13). He will judge the wicked and deliver the righteous now and in the future. To see this it is necessary to discuss the composition of Habakkuk as a whole and its placement within the composition of the Twelve. It would be a gross understatement to say that this has not at all been part of the discussion in treatments of New Testament quotations from Habakkuk. It is no wonder then that scholars see merely an “historical” meaning in Habakkuk with little or no legitimate relationship to the concerns of the New Testament authors. For Paul, however, Habakkuk is part of a larger composition called “the Prophets” (Acts 13:40). It is within this context that the following discussion treats the New Testament quotes of Hab 1:5 and 2:3–4.

Habakkuk 2:4 and Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11 As mentioned in the introduction, the eschatological theophanies of Nah 1:2– 8 and Hab 3:3–15 form an interpretive framework around the historical prophecies of Nahum and Habakkuk. Thus, Nahum’s account of the siege of Nineveh becomes a picture of future worldwide judgment. Habakkuk’s description of the righteous and the wicked in his own day anticipates and foreshadows the ultimate fate of the two groups in the future. Zephaniah follows Habakkuk and picks up the language of Nah 1:7 and Hab 2:20; 3:16 to speak of the eschatological Day of the LORD (Zeph 1:7, 15). It would be a mistake then to see an eschatological reading of these texts as something

Nahum through Malachi

49

original to later interpreters such as the Qumran community (1QpHab) or the New Testament authors. The eschatological meaning of these texts is the historical (i.e., grammatical) meaning of the author/composer of the Twelve. After the opening superscription (Hab 1:1), Habakkuk begins with a quasi-lament regarding the fact that the wicked are surrounding the righteous (Hab 1:2–4; cf., Ps 13). Some take this to mean internal strife among Habakkuk’s own people. Others understand the wicked to be the enemy of Hab 1:6–11. The author then addresses his readers with a warning about the temptation to “lack faith” (wnym)t )l) in the “work” (l(p) of God. The reason for this warning is the following revelation that God himself is the one who is raising up the enemy (Hab 1:6–11). This will be difficult for the people to swallow. Habakkuk himself struggles with his own faith as he acknowledges the purposes of God (Hab 1:12) yet does not understand why God would use a wicked instrument to judge a people whom Habakkuk considers to be more righteous (Hab 1:13–17). At the outset of chapter 2, Habakkuk resolves (cohortative; cf., Hab 3:18) to wait on the word of the LORD, which comes in Hab 2:2–20, and to see what his own reply will be, which comes in chapter 3 (Hab 2:1). The LORD commands Habakkuk, “Write a vision in order to explain upon tablets in order that the one who reads it may run” (Hab 2:2; cf., Isa 40:31).4 The vision is for “the appointed time” (d(wm) and “the end” (Cq). If it seems to tarry, Habakkuk is to “wait” (hkx) for it (Hab 2:3). The wicked will perish, but the righteous will live (Hab 2:4). It is clear from Daniel’s reading of this text that such language has to do with the future and final work of God, not the immediate circumstances of Habakkuk.5 In the conclusion to the final vision of Daniel 10–12, Daniel receives instructions to “shut up the words and seal the document until the time of the ‘end’ (Cq)” (Dan 12:4; cf., 12:9). He asks the angel how long it will be until the “end” (Cq) of the wonders (Dan 12:6; cf., 12:8). The response is “an appointed time” (d(wm), “appointed times” (Myd(wm), and a half (Dan 12:7). The righteous will be purified, and the wicked will act wickedly (Dan 12:10). Blessed is “the one who waits” (hkxmh). Daniel then becomes a model for the reader in Dan 12:13 much like Isaiah (Isa 8:16–18) and Habakkuk (Hab 3:17–19) before him, waiting on the future work of God whether or not it appears in his lifetime. It is imperative then to understand Hab 2:4 in terms of faith or lack thereof in the eschatological work of God: “Behold, his soul, which is not upright within him, is swollen, but the one who is righteous by his faith will live.” The first clause is apparently a description of the wicked unbeliever for which one might expect: “the one who is wicked will die.” The proud will

50

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

swell up and die. The odd choice of terms (lp( [“to swell”] occurs only here) grabs the reader’s attention and creates a link with the key text in Hab 1:5. lp( (“to swell”) in Hab 2:4 is a play on l(p (“work”) in Hab 1:5 involving the transposition of the first two letters. This link also has implications for interpretation of hnwm) in the second half of Hab 2:4. hnwm) ordinarily means “faithfulness,” but the link to Hab 1:5 encourages the reader to understand it as the nominal form (“faith”) of the hiphil of Nm) (“to believe” or “to have faith”).6 The syntax of Hab 2:4b allows for two possibilities. Does the phrase “by his faith” modify “righteous” (“the one who is righteous by faith will live”) or “live” (“the righteous will live by his faith/faithfulness”)? The first option indicates the means by which someone is counted righteous: faith. According to this view, the text would appear to draw upon Gen 15:6 (“And he believed [Nm)h] in the LORD, and he reckoned it to him righteousness [hdqc]”), which is the other key text for Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). The second option tells the way in which a righteous person lives: by faith or faithfully. Apart from the fact that the second option is somewhat of a tautology, the word order of this clause would seem to favor the first option: hyxy wtnwm)b qydc. If the author wanted to modify qydc, he could not have been clearer. On the other hand, if he wanted to modify the verb, it would have been clearer to place wtnwm)b after hyxy (cf., Lev 18:5). Two more exegetical issues remain for Hab 2:4. Why does the Septuagint reflect first-person instead of third-person pronominal suffixes (“my soul” and “my faith/faithfulness” instead of “his soul” and “his faith/faithfulness”)? And, what is the meaning of the verb “live” in Hab 2:4b? A treatment of the Septuagint appears below in the section on Heb 10:37–38. As for the verb “live,” it is most unlikely that it refers to the normal course of a human life. According to Hab 1:12, the basis for the hope of life is the everlasting nature of the LORD himself. Furthermore, the very fact that the LORD calls on Habakkuk to wait on something that will not take place in his lifetime suggests that he will indeed take part in the future work of God in life beyond death. It is this hope in a future resurrection that enables Habakkuk and those who follow his example to suffer well in the midst of persecution (cf., Dan 3; 6; 12:1–3). Following the section of “woe” oracles in Hab 2:5–20 is the prayer of Habakkuk (Hab 3:1): “O LORD, I have heard your report, I have feared, O LORD, your work; in the midst of years revive it, in the midst of years make it known; in rage remember compassion” (Hab 3:2). Here the same Hebrew word for “work” (l(p) from Hab 1:5 appears. The root for “faith” (Nm))

Nahum through Malachi

51

from Hab 1:5 and 2:4 does not occur, but apparently “fear” ()ry) falls within the same semantic field. For instance, Exod 14:31 puts “fear” ()ry) and “faith” (Nm)) together in the people’s response to the exodus. Within the Book of the Twelve, the parallel narratives of Jonah 1 and 3 (cf., Jon 1:1–3 and 3:1–4) use the two terms interchangeably. At the conclusion of Jonah 1, the sailors (Gentiles) “fear” ()ry) the LORD (Jon 1:16). In Jon 3:5, the Ninevites (Gentiles) “believe” (Nm)) in God. Thus, Hab 3:2 continues the theme of faith in God’s work from Hab 1:5 and 2:4. The work of God in Hab 3:3–15 is an eschatological work depicted in terms of the exodus/Sinai stories (Hab 3:3–9a, 15), creation/flood/exodus themes (Hab 3:9b–10), and the conquest (Hab 3:11–12).7 According to Hab 3:13–14, this final work of judgment and restoration is “messianic” in that it involves the smiting of the enemy’s head so central to other messianic poems (Gen 3:15; Num 24:8, 17; Judg 5:26; Pss 68:22 [Eng., 68:21]; 110:5–6).8 It is in the hope of this work that Habakkuk rests and resolves to exult in the LORD no matter what (Hab 3:16–19). Thus, the overall structure of Habakkuk features three main sections roughly corresponding to the more recent chapter divisions. At the beginning of each section is a verse that carries the theme and key terminology of the composition: “For a ‘work’ (l(p) is working in your days, you will lack ‘faith’ (from Nm)) when it is recounted” (Hab 1:5b). “Behold, his soul, which is not upright within him, is ‘swollen’ (from lp(), but the one who is righteous by his faith (from Nm)) will live” (Hab 2:4). “O LORD, I have heard your report, I have ‘feared’ (from )ry), O LORD, your ‘work’ (l(p); in the midst of years revive it, in the midst of years make it known; in rage remember compassion” (Hab 3:2).

The composition of Habakkuk is about justification by faith in the eschatological and messianic work of God. It is not merely about theodicy or correct behavior in the midst of a historical crisis. It instructs the reader about faith in something and someone larger than his or her immediate circumstances. Paul’s citations of Hab 2:4b in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11 follow the word order of the Hebrew text and are virtually identical with the exception of de/, which only appears in Rom 1:17. Paul does not use the pronoun either from the Masoretic Text (“his faith”) or from the Septuagint (“my faithfulness”). James Dunn thinks this was to give the word “faith” a new Christian sense that ran counter to the general understanding of the Hebrew text.9 But a

52

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

correct understanding of the Hebrew text does not require this at all, and Paul’s omission of the pronoun is probably inconsequential. Paul quotes Hab 2:4b in Gal 3:11 in order to offer intertextual support for his point from Gen 15:6 (Gal 3:6). He also employs Hab 2:4b to counter the specific wording of Lev 18:5 (Gal 3:12), which, according to Targum Onkelos and Matt 19:17, says that those who do the works of the law gain eternal life. Simon Gathercole has presented a well-balanced view on this text in response to adherents of the New Perspective.10 But Paul understands that the scenario of Lev 18:5 is hypothetical and not real in the composition of the Pentateuch (Ezek 20:11, 25).11 The law was added secondarily because of transgression (Gal 3:19).12 It exposes and exacerbates the problem of sin, pointing the reader of the Pentateuch to the need for a new covenant based on divine faithfulness (Deut 28:69; 29:3 [Eng., 29:1, 4]; 30:6), since no one is actually capable of keeping the law.13 The only person who is said to have kept the law in the Hebrew Bible is Abraham (Gen 26:5; cf., Deut 5:31; 6:1, 20; 10:13; 11:1; 26:17; 30:10, 16), and he was justified by faith (Gen 15:6), not by works of law (see the contrast between the law and the faith message of the Pentateuch in Rom 3:20–22; 10:5–8).14 Thus, the final composition of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, not first-century Judaism, is the primary context in which to understand the Pauline contrast between faith and works of law. Paul’s reference to Hab 2:4b in Rom 1:17 is obviously programmatic for the letter as a whole in which he addresses the Jewish-Gentile relations of the Roman church in terms of the gospel of justification by faith. It is noteworthy that Gen 15:6 plays a supporting role this time (Rom 4:3)—the opposite of the relationship between Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4b in Galatians. Paul’s exegesis of Hab 2:4b in both Romans and Galatians is consistent with the composition of Habakkuk and its place within the Twelve.

Habakkuk 2:3–4 and Hebrews 10:37–38 The quotation of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 is fundamentally different from Paul’s quotes of Hab 2:4b primarily because it is from the Septuagint and not from the original Hebrew text. It is not uncommon for a New Testament author to quote a non-original biblical text in order to suit his purposes. It is no more unusual than Paul’s quote from the poets (Acts 17:28). Just as Paul can quote from a non-biblical text, so the author of Hebrews can quote from a non-original biblical text. A quotation from a non-original biblical text is not a text-critical statement on what the author thinks is the original text.

Nahum through Malachi

53

Non-original readings provide insight into the early history of interpretation and very often shed light on the meaning of the original text. This is certainly the case with Heb 10:37–38. The text forms the conclusion to the last of the “warning” passages of Hebrews through which the author attempts to persuade his readers not to return to Judaism in the face of persecution but to hold fast to the Christ of the Hebrew Scriptures (Heb 2:1– 4; 3:7–4:11; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39). Thus, the emphasis is on the faithfulness and perseverance of the believer made possible by God’s gracious preservation of the believer. The text precedes the famous faith chapter of Hebrews 11, showing the correlation between endurance and genuine faith. The phrase “in yet a little while” of Heb 10:37 is neither the Septuagint rendering nor an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text (see Isa 26:20). The quote omits the middle of Hab 2:3. Its Septuagint-like rendering of the last part of Hab 2:3b adds an article and translates the infinitive absolute as a participle. It also adds the conjunction “and”: “For he who is coming will come and not delay” (cf., “For it will surely come, it will not delay”). The author of Hebrews has substituted a coming individual or messianic figure for the coming vision. This is consistent with the composition of Habakkuk as whole in which a messianic individual figures prominently in the depiction of the future and final work of God (Hab 3:13). The text of Heb 10:38 reverses the order of the clauses in Hab 2:4. This is probably because the author uses the noun u9postolh/ (“turning back”) in Heb 10:39 to comment on the verb u9poste/llw (“to turn back”) from the second part of Heb 10:38, which is the first clause in Hab 2:4. The first part of Heb 10:38 renders Hab 2:4b with a first-person pronoun: “My righteous one by faith/faithfulness will live.” There is a textual issue here. The Western reading “corrects” the text in the direction of the Septuagint. The Byzantine reading removes the problem of the pronoun altogether. Thus, the Alexandrian reading appears to be the original from which the others depart. The use of the first-person pronoun does derive from the first part of the verse in the Septuagint, but translations are generally not reliable in the realm of pronouns. The translation of Hab 2:4a in the Septuagint and in the second part of Heb 10:38 is a complete misunderstanding of a very difficult Hebrew text, not a reflection of a different Hebrew text. The Greek text has taken a single clause and made it into an “if…then” construction. It also confuses lp( (“to swell”) with the homonym lp( (“to be heedless”; see Num 14:44). It takes the verb “to be upright” in the sense “to be pleased” and makes the subject into “my soul” (i.e., the LORD’s soul) instead of “his soul.”15 The verse thus becomes a contrast between the apostate with whom the LORD is displeased

54

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

and the faithful believer—very fitting for the theme of Hebrews. But this is not the point of the links between Hab 2:4 and Hab 1:5; 3:2, nor is it the point of the parallelism in the Hebrew text of Hab 2:4 wherein the one who is not upright (a wicked unbeliever) swells up and dies, while the one who is justified by faith lives.

Haggai 2:6 and Hebrews 12:26 Haggai divides into four sections all dated to the year 520 B.C. (1:1–15; 2:1– 9; 2:10–19; 2:20–23; cf., Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1). The first section is a call to rebuild the temple. The second encourages the leadership and the people with regard to this task. The third section is a call to holiness. The fourth and final section is an address to Zerubbabel. Both the second and fourth sections speak of the LORD’s shaking of creation (Hag 2:6, 21). This is not merely a coincidence. The link between the new temple and the messianism associated with Zerubbabel is key to Haggai’s place in the Twelve. According to Hag 2:3, the new temple currently does not look very good in comparison with the first one (cf., Ezra 3:12–13). But through Haggai the LORD tells Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the people to be strong and to act because he is with them (Hag 1:12–14; 2:4–5; Zech 4:6; Ezra 5:1–2). The Masoretic Text of the first part of Hag 2:5 roots this in the Sinai covenant (“the word that I cut with you when you came out of Egypt”), but that covenant was broken (Jer 11:10). The Hebrew text behind the Septuagint apparently lacked this. According to Hag 2:6–8, the LORD will act again to shake creation and the nations to bring in silver and gold and fill the temple with glory (cf., Joel 4:16 [Eng., 3:16]; Zeph 1:2–3). The glory of the new temple will be greater than that of the first, and it will have the peace of the messianic kingdom (Hag 2:9; Isa 9:5 [Eng. 9:6]; 11:6–9; Mic 5:4 [Eng., 5:5]; Zech 9:10). The shaking and the filling of the temple with glory initially calls to mind the appearance of God’s glory in the tabernacle (Exod 40:35) and Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:11; Isa 6:1–4). But the bringing in of silver and gold recalls the plundering of the Egyptians just before the exodus, which provided the materials for the tabernacle (Exod 12:35–36; 25–31; 35–40; cf., Gen 12:16; 13:2; Ezra 1:4). In the new exodus the LORD will have the nations bring in the goods for the new temple. Within the context of the Twelve, this text is not simply about the building of the Second Temple. It is an illustration of the future restoration set forth in Zeph 3:9–20, which immediately precedes Haggai. The function of Haggai is similar to that of Ezekiel’s symbolic vision of the new temple in

Nahum through Malachi

55

Ezekiel 40–48, which is a priest’s (Ezek 1:3) way of depicting the future and final restoration of the people of God described in Ezekiel 33–39. According to the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7, the Davidic son was to build a temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:13). Solomon built a temple (1 Kgs 6–8), but his kingdom did not last (2 Kgs 11–12). Therefore, the prophets looked forward to a future son of David: “Behold, a man. Branch is his name, and he will sprout in his place and build the temple of the LORD. And he will build the temple of the LORD and lift up splendor and sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two of them” (Zech 6:12b–13; cf., Isa 4:2; 11:1; Jer 23:5; Ps 110). The text of Zechariah, which follows that of Haggai, ties directly to Haggai’s words about Zerubbabel with whom the LORD associates his shaking of creation (Hag 2:20–23). In this passage the LORD refers to Zerubbabel as “my servant” (Hag 2:23), giving the impression that Zerubbabel might be some sort of messianic figure (Isa 42:1; 49:3; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11; 1 Chr 3:19). But the following text of Zechariah clarifies that Zerubbabel and his historical circumstances only prefigure the real messianic kingdom. According to Zech 3:8b, the coming of the servant of the LORD (“Branch”) is imminent, not contemporary with the high priest Joshua. This is where Zech 6:12–13 picks up the thread and points the reader to a future messianic figure who will hold the offices of king and priest (cf., Ps 110). These words are to Joshua, not about him. Haggai’s temple in the composition of the Twelve is a picture of the messianic temple (cf., the “prince” in Ezekiel’s temple [Ezek 34:24; 44:3; 45:7, 16–17, 22; 46:2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 16–18; 48:21–22]). The text of Haggai encouraged the post-exilic community with regard to the new temple. The text of Haggai within the composition of the Twelve now encourages readers with regard to their hope in the messianic kingdom. This is precisely the way the author of Hebrews understands the text. He wants to encourage his readers not to return to Judaism but to hold fast to their hope in Christ. According to Heb 12:18–24, the people have not come to terrifying Sinai (the old covenant) but to Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant. The people should take care not to reject this (Heb 12:25), because God is acting again to shake creation (Heb 12:26; a partial quote of Hag 2:6) in the sense that this creation will be removed (Heb 12:27; cf., Isa 65:17; 66:22; Zeph 1:2–3; 2 Pet 3; Rev 21:1) and only the unshakeable kingdom of the Messiah will remain (Heb 12:28–29).16

56

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament Zechariah 8:16 and Ephesians 4:25

At first glance Eph 4:25 does not look much like a quote from a biblical text. There is no introductory formula, and it appears as if Paul himself could have written or dictated these words without reference to a particular text. At best this seems on the surface to be an example of Paul speaking in the language of his Bible. But closer examination and a comparison/contrast with the cognate text in Col 3:8–9 reveal the uniqueness of this expression. The imperative “Speak truth each with his neighbor” only occurs in Zech 8:16 (cf., Zech 7:9) in the Hebrew Bible (wh(r t) #y) tm) wrbd) and in the Septuagint (lalei=te a0lh/qeian e3kastov pro\v to\n plhsi/on au0tou=). Paul uses meta& instead of pro/v and thus has the following article in the genitive case rather than the accusative. Paul’s own language occurs in Eph 4:15: “but speaking the truth in love” (a0lhqeu/ontev de\ e0n a0ga&ph|). Both Zech 8:16 and Eph 4:25 outline appropriate behavior for the new eschatological people of God. The eighth chapter of Zechariah looks forward to a time when Jerusalem will be “the city of truth/faithfulness” (Zech 8:3; cf., Isa 1:26). The LORD will bring the remnant of his people to live in Jerusalem where they will be his people, and he will be their God “in truth/faithfulness and in righteousness” (Zech 8:8). They will no longer be a curse but a blessing (Zech 8:13). They are not only to speak the truth (Zech 8:16) but “love truth and peace” (Zech 8:19b). This new people of God will include the Gentiles (Zech 8:20–23). Paul exhorts his readers to put off the former way of the old humanity in Adam and put on the new humanity in Christ “created in righteousness and holiness of truth” (Eph 4:22–24; see Eph 1:10; cf., Rom 5:12–21; 6:6)—to walk in a manner worthy of their calling (Eph 4:1).17 He puts Zech 8:16 together with Ps 4:5 (Eng., 4:4)—“Be angry and do not sin”—and calls on his readers to forgive one another just as God in Christ forgave them (Eph 4:25–26, 32). They are to be imitators of God (Eph 5:1). This new humanity in Christ consists of both Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:14–15; Col 2:14; 3:10– 11; cf., Joel 3:1–2 [Eng., 2:28–29]; Gal 3:28).

Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:5; John 12:15 The text of Zech 9:9–10 is one of the more obvious messianic passages in the Twelve, and it was understood as such in the earliest Jewish and Christian interpretation (Matt 21:5; John 12:15; b. Ber. 56b; b. Sanh. 98a, 99a; Gen. Rab. 56:2; 75:6; 98:9; Eccles. Rab. 1:9).18 These verses speak of a righteous

Nahum through Malachi

57

king and savior (see versions) who will speak peace to the nations (cf., Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; 11:1–10; Jer 23:5–6; Mic 5:1–4a [Eng., 5:2–5a]; Ps 72). They also tell of an afflicted or humble king riding on a donkey, which seems to be a twist on the warrior-king image of Gen 49:11.19 This combination of royalty and lowliness is reminiscent of the servant songs of Isaiah (Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–9; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12; see also Dan 7:13–14; 9:24–27). Even more striking are the parallels in Zechariah where the language of this passage applies to the LORD himself (e.g., Zech 2:14 [Eng., 2:10]; 14:9), not unlike the poems of the Pentateuch or the book of Psalms wherein both the LORD and the messianic king reign (Gen 49:8–12; Exod 15:18; Num 24:7–9; Pss 2; 93; 97; 99; see also 1 Sam 8).20 The biblical authors are content to let these two stand side by side (Mic 4:7; 5:1 [Eng., 5:2]). The text of Zech 9:9–10 clearly looks beyond the post-exilic situation of Zechariah to a time when the people of Zion/Jerusalem will rejoice in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7)—a time when the Davidic son will come and reign over an everlasting and worldwide kingdom. Both Matthew and John quote Zech 9:9 in the context of their accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Matthew’s version of Zech 9:9aa differs slightly from the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (see Isa 62:11) and omits the parallel colon (Matt 21:5). It also omits the parallel colon of Zech 9:9ab. It is noteworthy then that Matthew keeps the parallelism of Zech 9:9b. The parallelism of the original Hebrew text probably only has one donkey in view here, but Matthew’s narrative has two animals on which Jesus sat (Matt 21:7). Furthermore, Matthew’s text of Zech 9:9b has o1nov instead of u9pozu/gion, and pw~lov ui9o\v u9pozugi/ou instead of pw~lov ne/ov. Matthew joins Zech 9:9 with Ps 118:25–26, which he interprets in terms of the entrance of the Davidic (i.e., messianic) king—the son of David (see Matt 21:42; 22:41–46). John’s version of Zech 9:9aa also differs from the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint and omits the parallel colon (John 12:15). It does not differ, however, in the same way as Matt 21:5. John also omits the parallel colon of Zech 9:9ab. John does not include the word “humble” for Zech 9:9ba, and his wording of Zech 9:9ba differs from the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and Matt 21:5. It is as if he condensed the parallel cola into one—something not uncommon in the history of interpretation of Hebrew parallelism.21 John does not require the parallel colon here since his narrative does not have Jesus riding on two animals. Also unlike Matthew, John’s quote of Ps 118:25–26 precedes his quote of Zech 9:9. It would be a mistake to see in these quotations an exhaustive fulfillment of Zech 9:9. In fact, the reader would have to spiritualize the text to do so.

58

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Zechariah looks forward to the messianic kingdom of the future. It is true that Jesus’ work in the first century A.D. inaugurated the last days in some sense, but there is much yet to come (Heb 9:28). Thus, the Gospels present Jesus’ triumphal entry in terms of Zech 9:9 in order to explain the events of the first century and to foreshadow the future. In this way they seize upon the two main aspects of the messianism of Zech 9:9–10: the lowly savior-king (first century A.D.) and the ruler of the ends of the earth (the future). The spiritual reality of Christ’s dominion (Eph 1:3–14) will become a physical reality in the messianic kingdom and new creation (Isa 11:6–8; 65:17, 25; 66:18–24).

Zechariah 11:13 and Matthew 27:9–10 In Zech 11:4–5 the LORD instructs the prophet to play the role of the good shepherd. The LORD himself is the good shepherd according to texts like Ezek 34:11–16; Mic 7:14; Ps 23. But the good shepherd is also a messianic figure in Jer 23:5–6 and Ezek 34:23; 37:24 (cf., John 10)—the ideal Davidic king in contrast to the bad shepherds or kings of Jer 21:1–23:4; Ezek 34:1– 10, 17–22. Within the Book of the Twelve the messianic ruler from Bethlehem is the one who will stand and be a shepherd in the strength of the LORD (Mic 5:3 [Eng., 5:4]; see Matt 2:6). The prophet thus acts out the role of this messianic shepherd, taking two staffs called Pleasantness and Binders. Some have suggested that the two staffs represent the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah (cf., Ezek 37:16), but according to Zech 11:14 only the staff called Binders represents the union between the two kingdoms (see Jer 3:14–18). The shepherd hides three shepherds/kings in one month and is impatient with them (Zech 11:8).22 He decides that he will no longer tend the flock (Zech 11:9). He breaks the staff called Pleasantness to represent the broken covenant (Zech 11:10–11; cf., Jer 11:9–14).23 It is unlikely that this is merely a rehearsal of the LORD’s history with his people given the fact that the people have learned the lesson of the past (Zech 1:1–6) and the fact that the book of Zechariah is primarily concerned with the future work of God. The shepherd then asks for his wages in Zech 11:12. The payment of thirty pieces of silver amounts to a dismissal of the shepherd on the part of the people. They disapprove of his leadership and simply want to send him on his way without proper compensation. The LORD then instructs the prophet to throw the money to “the potter” (rcwyh; Syr.: “the treasury” [rcw)h]), and the prophet throws it into the house of the LORD (i.e., the

Nahum through Malachi

59

temple) to the potter (Zech 11:13). There is no explanation of the potter here, only an indication that the prophet broke the other staff (Zech 11:14). The LORD says he will raise up a foolish shepherd in place of the good one (Zech 11:15–17). This is judgment for the people’s rejection of the good shepherd (cf., 1 Sam 8–15). Matthew 27:3–10 recounts Judas’ return of the thirty pieces of silver he received for his betrayal of Jesus. He throws the money into the temple in verse 5 (cf., 2 Sam 17:23; Acts 1:17–19). But the chief priests purchase the field of the potter with the money, which becomes known as the Field of Blood (Matt 27:6–8). The text then indicates that this was a fulfillment of what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, yet the quoted text appears to come from Zech 11:13 (Matt 27:9–10)—a combination of Zech 11:13ba and 11:13ab (adding “the sons of Israel”) followed by Zech 11:13bb (substituting “the field of the potter” for “the house of the LORD to the potter” and adding “just as the LORD commanded me”).24 Matthew does not see this text as a prophecy of Judas’ betrayal but a prophecy of the dismissal of the good shepherd (Jesus) by the people (represented by the chief priests). The payment of thirty pieces of silver serves the same purpose in both texts. Some have sought to find a match for part of this quoted text in the book of Jeremiah such as Jer 18:1–6; 19; 32:6–9. They suggest that the introduction of the combination of texts in Matt 27:9–10 with the name of the more prominent prophet is analogous to what happens in Mark 1:2–3. But apart from the mention of a field in Jer 32:6–9 there is little to suggest that Matthew has the book of Jeremiah in view at all. Others have suggested that Matthew simply cites Jeremiah as the head of the prophets (cf., b. B. Bat. 14b), but this is not the usual practice in the New Testament. Some witnesses have “Zechariah” for Matt 27:9, but “Jeremiah” is certainly the more difficult reading. It is possible then that Matthew understood Jeremiah to be the author of Zechariah 9–14. This is not unlike the suggestion that Ezra 1:1 attributes authorship of Second Isaiah to Jeremiah (see Isa 41:2; 44:28; 45:1; but see also Jer 25:11; 29:10; 50:8; 51:11).

Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37 (and Revelation 1:7) Chapters 12–14 of Zechariah are “the oracle of the word of the LORD about Israel” (Zech 12:1). This section reveals the events of the eschatological Day of the LORD—a very prominent theme in the composition of the Twelve (Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4 [Eng., 2:31]; 4:14 [Eng., 3:14]; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; Mal 3:23 [Eng., 4:5]). In the last days the LORD will make

60

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Jerusalem into a “cup of reeling” to all the surrounding peoples (Zech 12:2– 6; cf., Jer 25:15; Hab 2:16). Those who stumble among the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be “like David,” and the house of David will be “like God” (Zech 12:7–8). The text explains the phrase “like God” with the phrase “like the angel of the LORD.” David himself is “like the angel of God” in 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:28.25 The ideal Davidic king of the book of Isaiah is “God with us” (Isa 7:14) and “Mighty God” (Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; cf., 10:21). When the LORD destroys the nations who come against Jerusalem (Zech 12:9), he will pour out the Spirit of grace and supplication (Zech 12:10aa; cf., Ezek 39:29; Joel 3:1–2 [Eng., 2:28–29]), and the people will look at the LORD whom they pierced (Zech 12:10ab).26 The object marker t) is probably a reference to the LORD as the Aleph and the Taw (see Codex Alexandrinus of Amos 9:12; see also Isa 41:4; 44:6; Rev 1:8; 22:13). It is thus not possible to see this as a reference to the death of Josiah (Zech 10:11; 2 Chr 35:22, 25) or the high priest Onias. It is possible, however, to see this as a reference to the messianic king who, according to Jer 23:5–6, is “the LORD our righteousness.” This is not simply a name with a theophoric element like “Zedekiah.” It is a description of the messianic king much like “God with us” in Isa 7:14, which, according to Matt 1:21–23, is not the name of the Messiah but a description of the Messiah. The book of Isaiah depicts the messianic king—on whom is the Spirit (Isa 11:2; 42:1)—as the servant of the LORD who will suffer and die for the sins of the people (Isa 49:5–6; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12). Likewise the Masoretic Text of Zech 13:1 sees provision for the sin and impurity of the people in the piercing of the messianic king. It is no accident or coincidence then that Rev 1:7 combines the statement about mourning in Zech 12:10b with a reference to the messianic Son of Man from Dan 7:13 who is “cut off” or killed in Dan 9:26.27 They will mourn over him as one mourns for an only child or a firstborn son (Prov 8:22; 30:4; John 1:14, 18; 3:16; Col 1:15, 18). The book of Zechariah thus provides balance to the presentation of the messianic king in the book of the Twelve (cf., Zech 9:9). He is a mighty king and a suffering servant. Jews and Christians understood Zech 12:10 to be messianic in the early history of interpretation. A marginal reading to the Targum of Zech 12:10 in Codex Reuchlinianus (A.D. 1105) belongs to a no longer extant Palestinian Targum of the Prophets and refers to the Messiah son of Ephraim rather than the son of Judah or David: “And I will let rest upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of prophecy and true prayer. Afterwards Messiah son of Ephraim will go out to wage war with Gog, and

Nahum through Malachi

61

Gog will kill him before the gate of Jerusalem. And they will look at me and ask why the peoples pierced Messiah son of Ephraim, and they will mourn over him….” It is difficult to date this interpretation, but the theory of two Messiahs—of Ephraim/Joseph and David—does appear elsewhere in rabbinic literature (see Ex 40:9–11 Tg. Ps. Jon.; Tg. Song 4:5; b. Sukkah 52a; b. Sanh. 98a; cf., b. Pesah 118a; 4 Ezra 7:28–29), apparently in an effort to explain why the Messiah is a king in some passages but a suffering servant in others. A different theory of two Messiahs (Aaron and Israel) existed among the Qumran community (4QDa 10 I, 12; 1QS IX, 11; 1Qsa II, 11–22). A more biblical way of dealing with this problem is to see the roles of messianic king and suffering servant and the offices of king and priest in one person (Zech 6:12–13). This is the way the epistle to the Hebrews understands the matter, drawing heavily on texts like Ps 110. John refers to Zech 12:10 in his account of the piercing of Jesus’ side (John 19:37). The form of John’s text does not match the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint. It is noteworthy that John combines his quotation of Zech 12:10 with a quote from Exod 12:46; Num 9:12 (John 19:36; cf., Ps 34:21 [Eng., Ps 34:20]) since there is a possible allusion to Exod 12:46 in Ps 22:15, 18 (Eng., 22:14, 17)—a text that portrays the suffering of the servant of the LORD not unlike the servant songs of Isaiah (e.g., Isa 53:5).28 John 19:24 draws upon Ps 22:18 (Eng., 22:17), and John 19:28 alludes to Ps 22:15 (Eng., 22:14). Psalm 22 as a whole is one of the most important texts in the passion narratives of the Gospels (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34).

Zechariah 13:7 and Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27 Immediately following the above section (Zech 12:9–13:1) is a small unit in which the LORD says he will cut off the names of the idols, the false prophets, and the spirit of uncleanness “in that day” (Zech 13:2–6). Then he commands the sword: “‘O sword, awake against my shepherd and against the man who is my associate,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand upon the little ones’” (Zech 13:7). The text indicates that two-thirds will be lost (Zech 13:8), but the remaining third will be refined in the fire to be the true covenant people of God (Zech 13:9). Some have identified the shepherd in Zech 13:7 with the foolish shepherd in Zech 11:15–17. But this is difficult to reconcile with the LORD’s references to the shepherd in Zech 13:7 as “my shepherd” and “my associate.” Perhaps it is comparable to his references to Nebuchadnezzar as

62

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

“my servant” (e.g., Jer 25:9; 27:6). It is more likely, however, that Zech 13:7 refers to the good shepherd who suffers in Zech 9:9–10; 11:4–14; 12:10. Why then does the LORD command a strike against his own shepherd? It is very similar to the statement in Isa 53:11. The LORD was pleased to crush his own servant. Those who kill this messianic figure will be responsible for their actions, but it will all be part of the LORD’s plan. According to the Damascus Document (CD-B XIX, 7–11), the “little ones” in Zech 13:7 are those who escape “at the time of visitation” (Cqb hdqph). The rest will be delivered to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes. This text thus understands Zech 13:7 messianically, but not in terms of the son of David. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, understand the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus in light of Zech 13:7. After the institution of the Lord’s Supper in both Gospels, Jesus informs the disciples that they will stumble, for it is written: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep (of the shepherd) will be scattered” (Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27). The imperative of Zech 13:7b becomes a first-person verb in these quotes with the assumption that the LORD himself is carrying out the command through the agency of others. Peter insists that he will never fall away or deny Jesus (so also the other disciples), even though Jesus predicts he will (Matt 26:32–35; Mark 14:28– 31). The following threefold failure of Peter, James, and John to stay awake with Jesus in Gethsemane then becomes a foreshadow of Peter’s threefold denial (Matt 26:36–46, 69–75; Mark 14:32–42, 66–72). The disciples, of course, all flee at the arrest of Jesus in fulfillment of the Scripture (Matt 26:56; Mark 14:49, 50). After his death and resurrection Jesus turns to the “little ones” (Zech 13:7; Matt 18:6, 10, 14; Mark 9:42), the remnant of his disciples (minus Judas), and he sends them into the world to make disciples (Matt 28:18–20). The result will be the true new covenant community (Zech 13:9). Those who are not part of this people will be “cut off” (Zech 13:8).

Malachi 1:2–3 and Romans 9:13 Malachi consists of six formulaic disputations each with a statement from the LORD, a question from the people, and then a response from the LORD (Mal 1:2–5; 1:6–2:9; 2:10–16; 2:17–3:5; 3:6–12; 3:13–21). These units address specific problems in the post-exilic period: God’s love, the priesthood, the broken covenant, confusion of good and evil, robbing God, and the futility of serving God. The final section of the book (Mal 3:22–24 [Eng., 4:4–6]) relates more to the overall composition and eschatology of the Twelve.

Nahum through Malachi

63

The first disputation begins with the assertion from the LORD that he has loved the people (Mal 1:2; cf., Hos 9:15; 14:5 [Eng., 14:4]). There had been concern during the exilic period that the LORD had abandoned the people (Isa 40:27), but the LORD gave assurance that those who would wait on him would find strength (Isa 40:28–31). His word would not fail (Isa 40:6–8; 55:10–11). The question from the people in Mal 1:2 reflects the renewed concern of the post-exilic community: “How have you loved us?” The postexilic period had failed to produce the kind of grandeur envisioned by Second Isaiah (Isa 40–55). According to the post-exilic perspective of Third Isaiah (Isa 56–66), this meant that the fulfillment of those prophecies was yet to come in the future. The LORD assures the people of his love for them with a reference to his love of Jacob and hatred of Esau (Mal 1:2–3). This is first of all a reference to the two sons of Isaac in Gen 25:19–36:43. The LORD passed over the firstborn Esau in favor of Jacob—a very prevalent theme in Genesis (Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Zerah and Perez, Manasseh and Ephraim). This apparently did not mean that Esau would be without at least some measure of blessing (Gen 27:38–39; 33:9). The statement in Mal 1:2–3 also has corporate implications. The nation of Jacob/Israel is the object and means of God’s blessing (Gen 12:1–3; 28:10–22), but the nation of Esau/Edom is the object of judgment (Num 24:18; 2 Sam 8:14; Obad 1–14). Yet there is also the possibility for inclusion of Edomites in God’s kingdom (Amos 9:12; Obad 19). Paul addresses a very similar concern about God’s love for his people in Romans 9–11. Israel according to the flesh had largely rejected their Messiah in Paul’s day, but that did not mean the word of God had failed (Rom 9:6). Paul makes an important contrast between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise (Rom 9:7–9; cf., Rom 4:11, 16) and points out that God’s election, not birthright, is first and foremost (Rom 9:10–12). The prime example of this is the choice of Jacob over Esau (Rom 9:13). This does not make God unjust (Rom 9:14). It only elevates his mercy and grace (Rom 9:15, 19–23). There is no reason to create a false dichotomy here between individual and corporate election. Both are in view (Rom 9:16–18). God preserves the believing remnant of Israel (Rom 11:1–10) while he brings in the Gentiles (Rom 11:11–24). In the end the true Jewish-Gentile people of God will be saved (Rom 11:25–32).

64

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament Malachi 3:1 and Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27

Malachi 3:1 is part of the fourth dispute in Malachi. The people have been calling evildoers “good” (Mal 2:17), but the threat of eschatological judgment is on the horizon: “‘Behold, I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare a way before me; and suddenly he will come to his temple, the Lord whom you are seeking; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘And who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears; for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap’” (Mal 3:1–2; cf., Nah 1:6). This text revisits the language of the original exodus (Exod 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2) and the new exodus (Isa 40:3–5). A forerunner will prepare the way of the LORD. It means judgment for the wicked but deliverance for those who seek the LORD (cf., Hos 3:5). At the conclusion to a very similar dispute in Mal 3:13–21, the text looks forward to a time when there will be a clear distinction between the righteous and the wicked (Mal 3:18; see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked in Ps 1, which follows the Prophets according to Luke 24:44). That day will come burning like a furnace for the wicked, but it will be like a sunrise to the righteous (Mal 3:19–21 [Eng., 4:1–3]). It is the Day of the LORD according to the final piece of text in Mal 3:22–24 (Eng., 4:4–6), which stands outside the six disputations. This text ties Malachi to the larger theme of the Day of the LORD in the Book of the Twelve. The final three verses of Malachi begin with a call to remember the Torah of Moses (Mal 3:22 [Eng., 4:4]), which concluded with the expectation of the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10). The next verse picks up the language of the forerunner from Mal 3:1: “Behold, I am sending to you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible Day of the LORD” (Mal 3:23 [Eng., 4:5]; cf., Sir 48:10). Thus, the prophet like Elijah will precede the prophet like Moses. This future work of God will result in the restoration of all things (Mal 3:24 [Eng., 4:6]; see Luke 1:17). The New Testament authors identify John the Baptist as the prophet like Elijah (Matt 11:14; 17:10–11; Mark 9:11–12; Luke 1:17) and Jesus as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37).29 Their descriptions of John the Baptist match those of Elijah in the book of Kings (2 Kgs 1:8; Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6). The “quotations” of Mal 3:1 in Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27 are actually closer to the Septuagint of Exod 23:20, a text from which Mal 3:1 draws. The other influential text for Mal 3:1—Isa 40:3–5—appears together with Mal 3:1 at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 1:2–3).

Nahum through Malachi

65

Notes 1

“With Wenham, it is granted that Paul did not set himself in contrast to Jesus but operated in essential continuity with him. It is less certain that it best served Paul’s purposes in proclaiming the gospel to do so by alluding to or echoing Jesus’ teaching. For during Paul’s ministry, Jesus’ identity as the OT-promised Messiah still had to be demonstrated. This could be accomplished not by quoting Jesus’ words but by furnishing proof that the events in Jesus’ life, especially his crucifixion and resurrection, fit the pattern laid out in the OT. Thus the OT, not Jesus, was Paul’s primary theological source” (Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Diversity and Unity in the New Testament,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002], 145–46). 2 The imperatives in this verse are plural. Therefore, it is not entirely clear to whom God would be speaking here if he were in fact the speaker, unless he is addressing Habakkuk as the representative of the people. It is more likely that this is a general address from the author to the readers. The following verse then clarifies in God’s own words that the work of which the author speaks is indeed a divine work. 3 Furthermore, the Septuagint probably preserves the original text in its conflated reading of Hab 1:6: “the Chaldeans, the warriors.” The original text had “the warriors” to which a scribe added a historical referent: “the Chaldeans.” It is possible that the original referred to the Assyrians (see Jon, Mic, and Nah), but it is also possible that the original was intentionally vague in order to foreshadow the future work of God (see Hab 1:11 and Dan 11:36–39). 4 The second of two volitional forms in sequence often indicates purpose or result (see E. F. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2d ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1910], 320, 322, 325). 5 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 492. 6 “[I]n this particular context steadfastness can only mean the religious attitude of unshakeable trust, that is, faith” (Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967], 285); “[W]ithin the general context its value is to all intents and purposes that of our ‘faith’” (James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961], 173, n. 1). Moisés Silva contends that there is no dichotomy between faith and faithfulness in Habakkuk or Paul (Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001], 165–67). But it would be incorrect to say they are one and the same. 7 The inclusion in Hab 3:19b of the superscription to the following psalm from the collection of which Habakkuk was a part is a clue that the author intends this final poem to be eschatological. It is likely that the author does not understand it in the sense “For the director…” (xcn “to be preeminent”) but in the sense of ei0v to_ te/lov (“for the end”) (xcn “to endure”) as it is so often in the Septuagint of Psalms. 8 “And so here also Kxy#m is the divinely-appointed king of Israel; not, however, this or that historical king—say Josiah, Jehoiakim, or even Jehoiachin—but the Davidic king absolutely, including the Messiah, in whom the sovereignty of David is raised to an eternal duration…” (C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 10 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001], 425).

66

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament 9

James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 46. Simon J. Gathercole, “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,” in From Prophecy to Testament: the Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig A. Evans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 126–45. 11 Cf., John Calvin: “The hope of eternal life is, therefore, given to all who keep the Law; for those who expound the passage as referring to this earthly and transitory life are mistaken. The cause of this error was, because they feared that thus the righteousness of faith might be subverted, and salvation grounded on the merit of works. But Scripture therefore denies that men are justified by works, not because the Law itself is imperfect, or does not give instructions for perfect righteousness; but because the promise is made of none effect by our corruption and sin” (Harmony of the Pentateuch, trans. J. King [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989], 2:165; quoted in Moisés Silva, “Galatians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 803). See Romans 7. 12 See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 47–59. 13 See Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 168–71; John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), 11–56. See also Deut 9:24; Jer 13:23; Rom 5:20. 14 See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 66–71. 15 The pronominal suffixes “my” (yodh) and “his” (waw) are very similar and easy to confuse in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. 16 George Guthrie comments that God shook the earth at Sinai but now promises to shake the cosmos in the future (Heb 12:26) (“Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 990). The verb “shake” does not appear in Heb 12:18–21 or Exodus 19. The mountain “trembles” in Exod 19:18b, but this stands for the people according to a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint (see also Exod 19:16b; 20:18b). 17 See Meyer, The End of the Law, 40–46. 18 See Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, trans. David E. Orton (Leiden: Deo, 2001), 574. 19 The donkey by itself is not a symbol of humility (cf., 1 Kgs 1:33). 20 See William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998), 43. 21 See James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). 22 The text does not give the identity of the three shepherds (see Ralph L. Smith, Micah– Malachi, WBC 32 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984], 270). 23 Some take this to be a covenant with the nations (Mym(h) to free his people. But it is possible that the text should be M(h (“the people”) or ym( (“my people”), thus referring to the Sinai covenant or perhaps the refused offer of a new covenant relationship (Jer 31:31–34). 24 The textual variation in Matt 27:10 between e1dwkan and e1dwka apparently derives from reading e1labon in Matt 27:9 as third plural rather first singular. The verbs are first singular in Zech 11:13. 25 The Lucianic recension of 2 Sam 14:17 has “like the angel of the Lord.” 26 The Septuagint has “because they danced/mocked” (wdqr r#)) instead of “whom they pierced” (wrqd r#)). 10

Nahum through Malachi 27

67

See Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 88–93, 95–99. 28 See Ps 22:17b (Eng., 22:16) in the Septuagint (Ps 21:17) and 5/6H9evPs: “They have pierced my hands and feet.” 29 For rabbinic traditions about Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah see Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 706–709.

Chapter Four Variant Editions of the Twelve

One of the most fruitful recent developments in text-critical study of the Hebrew Bible has been the identification of variant literary editions of passages, sections, and whole books.1 Textual criticism proper works its way through intentional and unintentional scribal errors on the micro level in an effort to establish the text that stood at the beginning of transmission. The combined evidence of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, has forced critics to examine the macro-level deviations from the Masoretic Text. Such differences in arrangement and length constitute earlier and later editions that stood at the beginning of separate processes of transmission.2 There are two editions of the Pentateuch: the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch (see also Reworked Pentateuch). Evidence also exists for different arrangements of Joshua and Judges. The Septuagint of Joshua is about four to five percent shorter than the Masoretic Text. Its placement of Josh 8:30–35 after Josh 9:2 is one notable instance of difference in arrangement. 4QJosha also represents a shorter text, though not identical to the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint. The book of Joshua features an ending in the Septuagint version that serves to combine the book with the following book of Judges in anticipation of the narrative in Judg 3:12–30. The book of Judges then has its own variation among its textual witnesses (e.g., the omission of Judg 6:7–10 in 4QJudga). The textual situation becomes increasingly more complex with Samuel and Kings. For example, the well-known story of David and Goliath in 1 Sam 17:1–18:9 is extant in two versions: the shorter version of the Septuagint minus 1 Sam 17:12–31, 41, 48b, 50, 55–58; 18:1–6a and the longer version of the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text fills out the story with extra information about David’s arrival on the scene (1 Sam 17:12–31) and his encounters with Saul and Jonathan after the victory (1 Sam 17:55– 18:6a). It is fairly obvious that the Septuagint in this case has the earlier, more original edition of the story, and there is little evidence that a scribe or the translator has shortened the account (contra Wellhausen).3 Rather, the

70

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

second edition has simply made some major additions, and both editions have since enjoyed a life of their own. The Septuagint of 1 Kings appears to reflect a later stage of the book’s development (see 1 Kgs 5:1–14; 7:1–12; 8:12–13; 9:15–25; 11:1–10; 14:1– 20; 20–21; 22:41–51).4 Analysis of the Greek text reveals a great deal of complexity. The following note from Eugene Ulrich offers an overview: H. St. J. Thackeray (The Septuagint and Jewish Worship [London, 1921] 9–28) discerned the following divisions in the Greek text of Samuel-Kings: a (= 1 Samuel), bb (= 2 Sam 1:1–11:1), gg (= 1 Kgs 2:12–21:29), bg (= 2 Sam 11:2–2 Kgs 2:11), gd (= 1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kgs 25:30). He assigned a, bb, gg to one “translator” and bg, gd to a second “translator.” D. Barthélemy (Les devanciers d’Aquila [VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963] 34–41) refined Thackeray’s results, showing that the second grouping was not due to another “translator” but to a recensionist, i.e., a reviser of the first translation bringing it into greater conformity with the Masoretic Text, in word order, length of text, and choice of lexemes. Thus the majority of the Greek texts of Samuel represents the Old Greek for part of the narrative and the “Proto-Theodotionic” recension for the remainder.5

Emanuel Tov has demonstrated that the Greek version of 1 Kings (3 Kgdms) is in fact reflective of an underlying Hebrew text that stood at a later editorial stage than that of the Masoretic Text.6 In a recent publication he provides two pieces of evidence from 1 Kings 5 and 11.7 The omissions, additions, and different sequence of the Septuagint of 1 Kings 5 all point to an attempt at the level of the translator’s Vorlage to rearrange what was thought to be a “disharmonious” text: verse 1 equals verses 7–8 of the Masoretic Text; verse 14a equals 3:1 of the Masoretic Text; and verse 14b equals 9:16–17a of the Masoretic Text. The material about Pharaoh’s daughter in verse 14 of the Septuagint is more “appropriate” than the Masoretic placement, and the combination of 1 Kgs 4:7–19 (omit 1 Kgs 4:20–5:1) with the Septuagint’s 1 Kgs 5:1 makes for a smoother text. Tov’s second example from 1 Kings 11 also involves omissions, additions, and a different sequence in the Septuagint, but this time the second edition of the text is not merely for the purpose of harmony. Tov argues that the text behind the Septuagint deliberately downplays Solomon’s idolatry and makes his love of foreign women his primary sin (cf., the omission of this account in Chronicles). Both of Tov’s examples have implications for the understanding of the Septuagint’s arrangement of 1 Kings 20–21, which switches the order of the two chapters in the Masoretic Text. The Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of these two chapters has a reorganization of what was thought to be a disjointed text and presents a somewhat more whitewashed version of King Ahab:8

Variant Editions of the Twelve Masoretic Text

Septuagint

Ahab vs. Elijah (1 Kgs 17–19) Ahab vs. Aram (1 Kgs 20) Ahab vs. Naboth (1 Kgs 21) Ahab vs. Aram (1 Kgs 22)

Ahab vs. Elijah (3 Kgdms 17–19) Ahab vs. Naboth (3 Kgdms 20) Ahab vs. Aram (3 Kgdms 21) Ahab vs. Aram (3 Kgdms 22)

71

On the surface, the Masoretic Text looks like a fumbling effort to collect all the narratives about Ahab. A story involving an unnamed prophet in 1 Kings 20 (1 Kgs 20:13, 22, 28, 35) follows the prominent Elijah stories of 1 Kings 17–19. The text then resumes with the story of Naboth in 1 Kings 21 where Elijah again plays an important role (1 Kgs 21:17–24). The Masoretic version has also separated the two accounts of Ahab’s dealings with Aram. The Septuagint, on the other hand, features a neat arrangement in which the narratives involving Elijah appear together (3 Kgdms 17–19 and 20) and the narratives about Ahab’s dealings with Aram appear together (3 Kgdms 21 and 22). The tendency of those responsible for secondary editions of biblical texts was not to put a well-organized text into disarray. Rather, they would unwittingly run roughshod over compositional clues in favor of a more chronological and thematic arrangement. In this case, the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint was not quite able to pull it off, given the fact that the Elijah stories resume once again in 2 Kings 1 (4 Kgdms 1) after the account of Micaiah’s prophecy in 1 Kings 22 (3 Kgdms 22). The presentation of Ahab in the Septuagint is somewhat inconsistent with the overall depiction of the kingship of the northern kingdom of Israel in Kings. The sins of Jeroboam (i.e., alternative worship) cast a shadow over every subsequent king in the north (1 Kgs 12:25–33), but the arrangement of 3 Kingdoms 17–22 suggests that Jezebel, not Ahab, is at fault for the problems of Ahab’s day. The combination of 1 Kings 17–19 with 1 Kings 21 enables the reader to encounter Elijah’s flight from Jezebel and Jezebel’s murder of Naboth back to back. Only then do the stories appear where Ahab is solely responsible for his actions (3 Kgdms 21–22). The effect is very suggestive: Jezebel is also responsible for Ahab’s decisions in the final two chapters. The Masoretic arrangement, however, intertwines the narratives and does not allow the reader to let Ahab off the hook. Commentators are generally in agreement that the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint is at least in part secondary, but they tend to keep the discussion to a minimum, noting in particular the omission of 1 Kgs 22:41– 51 in the Lucianic recension and its transposition (minus v. 45) to the end of 1 Kgs 16:28 in the Old Greek.9 John Gray suggests that 1 Kings 20 and 22

72

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

were “part of the prophetic adaptation of a historical narrative which the compiler used as a source for his account of the house of Omri, ch. 21, the incident of Naboth’s vineyard being inserted in its position in MT in immediate anticipation of the fulfillment in ch. 22 of the oracle of doom on Ahab, which is the culmination of the story of Naboth’s vineyard (21:19ff).”10 In other words, the historical narrative of 1 Kings 20 seems at first glance out of place between the prophetic accounts of 1 Kings 17–19 and 21, giving reason for the arrangement in the Septuagint. Elijah receives instructions in 1 Kgs 19:15–16 that turn out to be programmatic for much of the remainder of the Elijah-Elisha narratives: “Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus, and you will go and anoint Hazael king over Aram; and Jehu the son of Nimshi you will anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you will anoint as prophet in your place.” The first of these three instructions was to anoint Hazael king over Aram. The story of Naboth’s vineyard thus does not follow 1 Kings 19 particularly well in the Septuagint order. Rather, it is the Masoretic Text that picks up this detail of the role of Aram in 1 Kings 20. The responsibility of tapping Hazael to be the next king of Aram ultimately falls to Elisha (2 Kgs 8:13). The second instruction to anoint Jehu then fits nicely with what follows 1 Kings 20 in chapters 21 and 22—the downfall of Ahab. Again it was Elisha, not Elijah, who eventually anointed Jehu (2 Kgs 9), but Jehu was the king who brought to conclusion Omri’s dynasty, of which Ahab was the most notorious member (2 Kgs 9–10). The third instruction relates to Elisha and the narrative that begins in 2 Kings 2. Thus, the sequence of the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagint, works compositionally with 1 Kgs 19:15–16: 1 Kings 19:15–16

Masoretic Text

Septuagint

Aram Israel Elisha

Aram (1 Kgs 20) Israel (1 Kgs 21–22) Elisha (2 Kgs 2ff)

Israel (1 Kgs 21) Aram (1 Kgs 20) Elisha (2 Kgs 2ff)

1 Kings 19 and 20 also feature a couple of verbal links (1 Kgs 19:2 and 20:10; 1 Kgs 19:18 and 20:15). These are in addition to the link between the end of 1 Kings 20 and the beginning of 1 Kings 21. The story of 1 Kings 20 ends with these words: “And the king of Israel went to his house sullen and vexed and came to Samaria” (1 Kgs 20:43). After Naboth’s refusal of Ahab’s request at the beginning of 1 Kings 21, the same words appear: “And Ahab came to his house sullen and vexed…” (1 Kgs 21:4). These are the only two

Variant Editions of the Twelve

73

occurrences of the description “sullen and vexed” in the entire Hebrew Bible, but the Septuagint disturbs this link by placing chapter 20 after chapter 21.

The Prophets The book of Isaiah is fairly stable in the early textual witnesses, although 1QIsaa is by no means identical to the Masoretic Text. The book of Jeremiah, however, is another story. This book is roughly one sixth shorter in the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text. The longest continuous passages that do not appear in the Septuagint are Jer 33:14–26 and 39:4–13. This edition of the book also contains a significant alternative arrangement of the text (e.g., the nations corpus, which appears in the following order after Jer 1:1–25:13: Jer 49:34–39; 46:2–28; 50–51; 47; 49:7–22, 1–6, 28–33, 23–27; 48). Furthermore, a Hebrew fragment of Jeremiah from Qumran (4QJerb 9:21– 10:21) agrees with the Septuagint in shortness and arrangement. One major difference in content between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text is the identity of the enemy from the north (Jer 1:14) in Jer 25:1–13. The Septuagint leaves this enemy unidentified, but the Masoretic Text historicizes the text and consistently identifies the enemy with Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon (Jer 25:1, 9, 11–12; but see Jer 50:3), limiting Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years to the sixth century B.C. Thus, the Septuagint represents a shorter, more open-ended edition consistent with the interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy in Dan 9:1–2, 24–27 and Ezek 38:14– 17, while the Masoretic Text represents a longer, more historicized edition of the book.11 The book of Ezekiel is also significantly shorter in the Septuagint by about four or five percent.

The Writings Some have suggested that 11QPsa represents an edition of the Psalter different from the Masoretic Text, but others see it as a non-biblical text put together for liturgical purposes. The Septuagint of Job is roughly one fifth shorter than the Masoretic Text, but the evidence suggests that this shorter version is due to the work of the translator.12 The final eight chapters of the Septuagint of Proverbs appear in the following order: 24:1–22; 30:1–14; 24:23–34; 30:15–33; 31:1–9; 25–29; 31:10–31. This edition has displaced the words of Agur (Prov 30) and Lemuel (Prov 31:1–9) to a less prominent position in the book. The Greek text even attempts to translate their names.

74

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Such an effort to deemphasize this distinctly Gentile element of the book’s conclusion is most likely secondary.13 The textual witnesses to the Megilloth (Ruth, Song, Eccl, Lam, and Est), Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles are generally close to the Masoretic Text, although Esther has a significant number of additions in its Greek version. Other notable exceptions include the omission of Song 4:8–6:10 in 4QCanta and the Greek superscription to Lamentations. The book of Daniel, however, shows considerable variation between the traditional Hebrew/Aramaic text and the witnesses to the Old Greek translation. Apart from the major additions—Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon—the Old Greek tends to expand in chapters four and five of Daniel in contrast to the Masoretic Text and Theodotion. On the other hand, the Masoretic Text and Theodotion tend to expand in chapter five in contrast to the Old Greek. These differences go beyond the level of individual variants and beyond the work of a translator.

The Twelve The Book of the Twelve is extant in two editions: the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. The large scale differences between these two editions take place in the arrangement of the first six books: Masoretic Text

Septuagint

Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah

Hosea Amos Micah Joel Obadiah Jonah

It is also possible that the oldest of the Qumran fragments of the Twelve (4QXIIa) represents a third edition ending with Jonah after Zechariah and Malachi. These textual witnesses raise the question of which edition was the catalyst for the other(s). Did the Masoretic order give rise to that of the Septuagint or vice versa? Barry Alan Jones has argued in favor of the Septuagint order with the exception of Jonah, for which he prefers placement at the end of the Twelve as in 4QXIIa.14 According to Jones, the Masoretic Text is a rearrangement of

Variant Editions of the Twelve

75

this order and constitutes the final stage in the development of the Hebrew text. This view obviously has a precedent in the demonstrated priority of the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of other books such as Jeremiah. Christopher Seitz, however, sees the evidence very differently when he says that “the Septuagint is best seen as an effort to recast a strange Masoretic Text order, along the lines of its classification intuitions known elsewhere. A movement from Septuagint to Masoretic Text admits of no obvious explanation.”15 Seitz’s view also has examples to commend it such as the secondary rearrangement of Kings in the Septuagint. There is currently no Hebrew manuscript evidence for the arrangement of the books of the Twelve in the Septuagint. It is thus impossible to say for certain if this order occurred first in Hebrew and then in Greek. On the other hand, Greek manuscript evidence does exist for the order of the books in the Masoretic Text: the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr, c. 50 B.C.–A.D. 50). This scroll contains parts of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. Furthermore, the text of the Septuagint itself seems to presuppose the arrangement of the Masoretic Text at key points. For instance, the Greek rendering of Amos 9:12 appears to have the Amos-Obadiah sequence for its basis, as discussed earlier in this book. This would seem to suggest that the order of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll was prior to that of the Septuagint.16 The Septuagint order looks like an attempt to put the first six books together according to length from the longest to the shortest.17 Jonah is obviously an exception to this, which perhaps provides a rationale for the placement of Jonah at the end of the book in 4QXIIa. But of course this would mean that the arrangement represented by these witnesses is secondary. With regard to the possibility that 4QXIIa represents a separate third edition, it must be said that such fragmentary evidence without further support is too little a foundation upon which to build. Placement of Jonah at the end of the Twelve also disrupts the canonical seamwork wherein the connection between the Prophets (Mal 3:1, 23 (Eng., 3:1; 4:5) and Psalms (Ps 1:2) echoes the connection between the Pentateuch (Deut 34:10) and the Prophets (Josh 1:8) (see endnote 7 in the Introduction).18 The arrangement of the Septuagint of the Twelve is most likely a case of secondary editorial maneuvering rather than an original piece of composition. Even if the basic correctness of the order proposed by Jones were granted, it would be difficult to demonstrate why someone would want to change such a neat and practical placement of the books. As indicated in the introduction, the real compositional seamwork takes place in the order of the Masoretic Text. It is in the arrangement of the traditional Hebrew text

76

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

that the signs of authorial activity emerge—that is, the signs of a composer putting large pieces of together not for practical purposes but for theological purposes. A reader not sensitive to these purposes would probably have felt free to rearrange the books to a more immediately suitable order. The New Testament authors were evidently in tune with the theological purposes of the Twelve as a whole. Their quotations presuppose the order of the books as they appear in the Masoretic Text (e.g., Acts 15:17).

Variant Editions of the Twelve

77

Notes 1

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2d rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 313–50. 2 According to Eugene Ulrich, individual variants within these texts may or may not have large scale ramifications: “But again, texts and their variants have a rich life, and individual variants can and do cross the boundaries between variant editions. Thus those who say simply that texts exhibiting different editions should not be used to correct individual variants in the other begin with a good premise but are also likely to be mistaken as often as they are correct” (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 110). 3 The suggestion that the Septuagint or the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint shortened the longer text in order to remove difficulties has its basis in modern perception of problems that would not have occurred to ancient readers. For example, it is said that the description of David to Saul in 1 Sam 16:18 makes Saul’s question about David in 1 Sam 17:55 problematic. Therefore, the Septuagint omits 1 Sam 17:55. But someone in Saul’s position would have had little reason to remember trivial information about the father of one of his servants. It was only after David came to the foreground in his defeat of Goliath that such information became important to Saul. Thus, he required Abner to refresh his memory. 4 The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, though fragmentary, seems to suggest that the Septuagint of Kings represents a different Hebrew text from that of the Masoretic Text and not simply the work of the translator (4QKgs: 1 Kgs 7:40; 8:16; 22:30; pap6Kgs: 2 Kgs 8:1, 4). “Despite the limited scope of text on most fragments, however, there are enough indications of text significantly divergent from the traditional Masoretic Text to suggest that the text of Kings was pluriform in antiquity, just as the text of Samuel has been demonstrated to be” (Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible [San Francisco: Harper, 1999], 260). The editors of this publication also point out that 4QKgs: 1 Kgs 7:25–27 provides a clue that “Kings may have had an expanded text on which the author of Chronicles based his composition.” See also the discussion of chronological differences in the Septuagint of Kings in Tov, Textual Criticism, 338. 5 Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 185, n. 3. 6 Emanuel Tov, “3 Kingdoms Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions,” in Flores Florentine: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martínez, ed. A. Hilhorst et al., JSPSup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 345–66; contra A. Schenker, Septante et texte Massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14, CahRB 48 (Paris: Gabalda, 2000). 7 Tov, “The Septuagint as a Source,” 45–48; “In this book the translation is faithful to the Hebrew and accordingly, the major discrepancies of the LXX from the MT are based on a different Hebrew composition” (ibid., 44). 8 See D. W. Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns,” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29. 9 E.g., John Gray, I & II Kings, 2d ed. (London: SCM, 1970), 44–46, 414–18; Simon J. Devries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Waco: Word, 1985), lii–lix; Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 85–86; Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 34–37. 10 Gray, I & II Kings, 45.

78

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament 11

See Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 39–44, 95–99. 12 “…when we find major deviations from the MT in a faithful translation, they probably reflect a different Hebrew text. On the other hand, if a translator was not faithful to his parent text in small details, even paraphrasing it occasionally, he could have inserted major changes in the translation” (Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 33). 13 The secondary nature of the Septuagint of Proverbs most likely reflects a Hebrew Vorlage different from the Masoretic Text. The general character of the translation is not paraphrase. The translator is usually faithful to the source (cf., MT), but this text had numerous additions (sometimes from elsewhere in Scripture [e.g., Prov 1:7 and Ps 111:10]), omissions (e.g., Prov 10:1), and rearrangements. Thus, it is appropriate to speak of two different Hebrew editions of the book. This is not to say, however, that the Septuagint of Proverbs is entirely free of material for which the translator was responsible. 14 Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 15 Christopher R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 204. 16 This does not mean that the translation of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll was earlier than that of the Septuagint. For the relationship of the Scroll to Theodotion see Tov, Textual Criticism, 145. 17 Cf., Lives of the Prophets 5–10: Hosea, Micah, Amos, Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah. 18 According to 4QMMT, Luke 24:44, and Philo (Contempl. 1f., 25), Psalms stands at the head of the third division of the Hebrew Bible known as the Writings.

Appendix One Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah

Recognition of the fact that New Testament authors quote from the Twelve with a view to the composition as a whole raises the question of whether or not this is also the case with quotations from other biblical books such as the Pentateuch, Isaiah, or Psalms. Treatments of quotations from these books typically look only at the immediate context with very little attention to their compositional strategy as whole texts. John Sailhamer is an exception to this trend. He has recently demonstrated the continuity between the meaning of the Pentateuch’s composition and the theology of the New Testament authors.1 What follows here is an examination of the work of the final composer of the book of Isaiah. This analysis provides a framework in which to understand New Testament quotations from Isaiah. The same approach is also valid for other books like Psalms, which the New Testament authors view as a prophetic composition (Acts 2:30) and not as an anthology or hymnbook.2

The Composition of Isaiah 2:1–10:19 and 24:1–33:24 Pre-critical commentators on the book of Isaiah had little to say about the relationship between Isa 5:8–30 and Isa 9:7 (Eng., 9:8)–10:19. Critical scholarship has helped biblical interpreters to appreciate the composite nature of the text, resulting more recently in a much greater understanding of the text’s present arrangement. The so-called Denkschrift Hypothesis, which received its classic formulation in the work of K. Budde, suggests that the collection of oracles in Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7) is a displaced Isaianic memoir. The “woe” oracles (Isa 5:8–24; 10:1–19) and the use of a refrain (Isa 5:25– 30; 9:7 [Eng., 9:8]–10:4) on both sides of this unit have given rise to a wide variety of theories about the “original” presentation of the material.3 The current debate focuses much more on the final shape of the text as it now stands. For example, Conrad L’Heureux’s 1984 essay begins with a critique of J. Vermeylen’s work on this passage and concludes that the poetic

80

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

structure of the larger compositional units should receive much greater attention.4 He traces an elaborate development of seven “woe” sayings, five strophes, the Emmanuel Booklet, and the Song of the Vineyard. Robert Chisholm has applied rhetorical criticism to Isa 5:8–30 and decided that Isa 5:24–30 (except v. 24b) constitutes an announcement of judgment attached to woes 3–6, which otherwise do not contain such an announcement.5 Bernhard Anderson’s essay is yet another example of rhetorical criticism.6 In addition to rhetorical criticism, redaction criticism continues to make fresh contributions to analysis of the text in its final form. For instance, Hugh Williamson has suggested that Deutero-Isaiah is the composer of Isa 11:11– 12:6 and the redactor responsible for the present position of Isa 5:25–30.7 This redactor placed Isa 5:25–30 as a conclusion to the condemnation of Isa 2:6–5:24 (excluding 4:2–6 as a later addition) and Isa 11:11–12:6 as a conclusion to Isa 6:1–11:10. The general agreement among scholars is that the current arrangement of the material in Isa 5:8–30; 9:7 (Eng., 9:8)–10:19 serves as a framework or double inclusio around the unit of Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7).8 In the words of Christopher Seitz, “In sum, every effort should be made to interpret chapter 5 in its present location and in its present arrangement.”9 What seems to be missing is any discussion of how the composition of this section (Isa 5:8–10:19) might find a parallel elsewhere in the book of Isaiah. In light of other well-known connections between distant parts of the book such as Isa 1:1–2:5 and Isa 65–66 or Isa 6:1–9:6 and Isa 36–39, it appears legitimate to ask whether or not such a link exists that would provide new insight into the compositional make-up of Isa 5:8–10:19. Williamson’s work is a step in this direction, but no solution to the problem thus far has attempted to relate this material to any other part of the book in a thoroughgoing manner. This appendix seeks to examine the composition of the book and attempts to set Isa 5:8–10:19 therein.

The Composition of Isaiah Scholarship in the arena of Isaiah studies has moved well beyond the old dichotomy between the seamless and the composite. The task now is to follow the clues of composition that inform the reader as to how the many and diverse parts of the book have managed to function as a unity. This situation within the book of Isaiah was aptly expressed in an important article by Rolf Rendtorff: “…daß das Jesajabuch aus einer Anzahl größerer oder kleinerer Teilkompositionen besteht, die jeweils ihre eigene Struktur

Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah

81

und Funktion haben, die aber nicht völlig voneinander unabhängig sind, sondern zwischen denen deutlich erkennbare Beziehungen bestehen, die als Hinweise auf eine bewußte Gesamtkomposition des Buches zu werten sind.”10 The first major compositional structure of the book is the framework established by Isa 1:1–2:5 and Isa 65–66.11 Besides the verbal links such as those between Isa 1:29–31 and Isa 65:3; 66:17, 24, perhaps the most obvious feature of this connection is the expectation of a future ingathering of all the nations (Isa 2:2–4; Isa 66:18–24). The role of the nations in Isaiah as part of the people of God is much more marked than that in Jeremiah or Ezekiel (but see Jer 3:17). It has a great deal in common, however, with the Twelve (e.g., Amos 9:12). This framework of the book explains the delay of Isaiah’s call until chapter 6. The call of Isaiah simply does not have the same compositional or programmatic function up front that Jeremiah 1 and Ezekiel 1–3 have. It is evident from the beginning then that the reader must follow a different approach to the book than that proposed by W. H. Brownlee and C. A. Evans who argued on the basis of the gap between chapters 33 and 34 in 1QIsaa that the book consists of two parallel volumes.12 The passage in Isa 2:1–5 serves double duty on the front end of a subunit that concludes with Isa 4:2–6. These two passages of eschatological restoration frame three judgment sections: Isa 2:6–22; 3:1–15; 3:16–4:1. The closest parallel to this subunit within First Isaiah is Isa 24:1–27:1 with its expectation of a consummation of all things in worldwide judgment and restoration. Most notable is the description of a feast for all peoples on Mount Zion (Isa 25:6– 10a; cf., Isa 2:2–4). It is also highly remarkable that a vineyard song follows both Isa 2:1–4:6 and Isa 24:1–27:1. The first song in Isa 5:1–7 is a song of judgment that contrasts the faithfulness of the LORD (the keeper of the vineyard) with the unfaithfulness of Israel (the vineyard producing bad grapes). The LORD will leave the vineyard to be trampled. The second song in Isa 27:2–6 features a reversal of this situation. The LORD who keeps the vineyard is also the one who makes the vineyard productive. A series of woes follows both vineyard songs: Isa 5:1–24 and Isa 28–31. These woes have points of contact with one another and with other woe collections (e.g., Amos 5:18–6:14; Hab 2:6b–20). Williamson suggests that Isa 28–31 originally served as the climax to the section beginning at Isa 14:28 minus chapters 24–27.13 This observation highlights the importance of the placement of chapters 24–27 in the final form of the book, which is not unlike the importance of the final arrangement of the material in chapter 5. The two woe sections speak against the “drunkards” (Isa 5:11, 22; Isa 28:1)

82

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

and those who think that the LORD does not see what they do (Isa 5:18, 21; 29:15). The LORD will bring their pride low (Isa 2:9, 11, 17; 5:15–16) and exalt his own majesty (Isa 2:10, 19, 21). Following the six woes of chapter 5 and the separate passage of Isa 5:25–30 is the unit of Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7), which features the call of Isaiah (Isa 6), the sign of Immanuel (Isa 7:14), and the declaration about an ideal Davidic king (Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]). The two final woes after this unit begin in Isa 10:1 and 10:5 respectively, the last of which is against Assyria. This pattern also finds a parallel in Isaiah 28–33. After the five woes of chapters 28–31, an interlude appears in chapter 32 with a description of the ideal Davidic king who brings in justice and righteousness (cf., Isa 28:16–17; 33:17–24). Chapter 33 then contains one last woe apparently directed against Assyria, even though the name of Assyria never occurs in the text (Isa 33:1). Equally remarkable is the fact that the conclusion to chapters 1–12 has its closest parallels in chapters 34–35 and Second Isaiah. The remnant theme (Isa 10:20–23), the man with the Spirit of the LORD upon him (Isa 11:1–10), and the new exodus (Isa 11:11–12:6; cf., Isa 12:2 and Exod 15:2) all find further development in texts like Isa 34:10; 42:1–4; 43:16–21. Rendtorff has noted the occurrence of the key term “comfort” at the strategic junctures of Isa 12:1; 40:1; 51:12; 66:13 (also Isa 49:13; 51:3; 52:9; 61:2).14 Meanwhile the unit of Isa 6:1–9:6 has its well-known connections to the Hezekiah narratives in chapters 36–39 (cf., 2 Kgs 18–20; 2 Chr 29–32). Hezekiah’s trust in the sign from the LORD (Isa 37:30) stands in stark contrast to Ahaz’s failure to put his faith in the sign of Immanuel (Isa 7:9, 14) and to his preference for the assistance of the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 16:7–8). Second Isaiah matches well the larger book’s propensity for compositional framework. The driving concern at the outset is the demonstration of the everlasting faithfulness of God’s word over against the frailty of the people (Isa 40:6–8). The LORD is the inscrutable creator God quite apart from the idols of the nations (Isa 40:12–26). He will give strength to those who wait on him despite the complaint of his exiled people (Isa 40:27–31). The conclusion to Second Isaiah equals this concern when it presents what the LORD has to offer as something better than idolatry (Isa 55:1–5). The people should seek him while he may be found because his word faithfully accomplishes the purpose for which he sends it (Isa 55:6–13). Bernhard Duhm isolated the so-called servant songs of Second Isaiah (Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12) and identified them as post-exilic additions to the surrounding exilic material.15 Whatever the case may have been, these songs play a major role now not only in the composition of

Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah

83

Second Isaiah but also in the deliberate association of Second Isaiah with First and Third Isaiah. The verses immediately following the first servant song, a song that many would extend through Isa 42:7, speak of the LORD’s ability to declare new things before they come to pass in contrast to the inability of the idols to do so (Isa 42:8–9). The servant songs are an integral part of a pervasive expectation in Second and Third Isaiah of new things beyond Babylonian captivity (Isa 43:16–20; 48:1–8; 65:17–25). A much more sophisticated compositional strategy, however, surfaces in the many and detailed verbal links between these songs and Isa 9:5–6 (Eng., 9:6–7); 11:1–10; 61:1–9.16 The servant of the LORD, like the ideal Davidic king, brings in justice, righteousness, and peace (Isa 9:6 [Eng., 9:7]; 11:3–9; 42:1, 3–4; 53:5). He is a light to the nations (Isa 9:1 [Eng., 9:2]; 11:10; 42:6; 49:6; 50:10). The Spirit of the LORD is upon him (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). He is a covenant of a people (Isa 42:6; 49:8; 61:8). He sets the prisoners free (Isa 42:7; 49:9; 61:1). These and several other links cut across the various divisions of the book and serve to identify the servant of the LORD in Second Isaiah with the ideal Davidic king of First Isaiah and to connect this individual with the future hope of righteousness in Third Isaiah. The key term in Third Isaiah is “righteousness.” Rendtorff has highlighted Isa 56:1 and its combination of righteousness/justice from First Isaiah and righteousness/salvation in Second Isaiah: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Keep justice and do righteousness; for near is my salvation to come and my righteousness to be revealed.’”17 The concern within the post-exilic community of Third Isaiah is that the ideal of Second Isaiah has not yet appeared and that the righteous perish (Isa 57:1). The ritualistic righteousness of the community is of no help (Isa 57:11; 58:1–14; 64:5) with the result that true righteousness/justice is nonexistent (Isa 59:1–8) and far away (Isa 59:9–21). Only the eschatological appearance of the glory of the LORD (Isa 60:1) will usher in the righteousness of the people (Isa 61:19, 21) by means of the ministry of the servant (Isa 61:1–3, 10). The LORD’s righteousness/salvation will accomplish this (Isa 62:1; 63:1), ultimately establishing the ideal state of affairs with the new creation (Isa 65:17–25) and the ingathering of the nations (Isa 66:18–24). With these thoughts about the composition of Isaiah in mind, it is possible to set up the following presentation of parallels within the book. For the purposes of this discussion, the shared sequence between Isa 2:1–10:19 and Isa 24–33 is of primary importance. In both cases the use of inclusio functions to frame a section about an ideal king (Isa 6:1–9:6 [Eng., 9:7]; 32). This compositional feature of the text informs the reader about the intended message of Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7) as a unit.

84

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament 1:1–2:5

//

65–66

2:1–4:6 5:1–7 5:8–30 6:1–9:6 9:7–10:19 10:20–12:6

// // // // // //

24:1–27:1 Future Work of God 27:2–13 Vineyard [13–23] 28–31 Woe 32; 36–39 King 33 Woe (Assyria) 34–35; 40–55 Future Work of God

56–64

Intro and Conclusion

Third Isaiah

Exegesis of Isaiah 5:8–10:19 With the larger composition of the book in view, the reader can interpret the smaller units as parts of a larger whole. The following outline serves as a guide to the discussion of Isa 5:8–10:19: 5:8–24 5:25–30 6:1–9:6 9:7–10:4 10:1–19

Six Woes (5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22) Refrain (5:25b) King (6:5; 7:14; 8:11–15; 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]) Refrain (9:11b, 16b, 20b; 10:4b) Two Woes (10:1, 5)

The composer has taken great care to make Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7) the centerpiece in a manner comparable to the setting of Isaiah 32 within Isa 24– 35. This means that the interpreter must treat this text as a unit and cannot reach any valid conclusions about chapters 6 and 7 before finishing the exegetical task in Isa 8:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7). Such an approach has major implications for the identity of Immanuel in Isa 7:14.18 Chapter 6 seems to play an introductory role in this unit (cf., 1 Kgs 22:19). Isaiah’s vision of the LORD as king (Isa 6:4) creates an unresolved tension with the human king elsewhere in the book, a tension with which the authors of the Hebrew Bible are happy to live (e.g., Gen 49:8–12; Exod 15:18; Num 24:7; Zech 9:9–10; 14:9; Pss 2; 97:1; 99:1; Dan 7). William Horbury has made a particularly important contribution in this area with his treatment of the messianism of the Hebrew Bible.19 Chapter 6 also takes up the remnant theme of Isa 1:9; 4:2–6 and prepares the reader for the introduction of Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub (Isa 7:3) whose name serves as a sign that a remnant will return (Isa 8:18; 10:20–23). This is a feature of the

Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah

85

Masoretic Text of Isa 6:13 in particular, which compares the holy seed to a stump that remains after the felling of a tree (cf., Isa 53:10; 61:9; 65:9–10; 66:22). The Septuagint and 1QIsaa take the text in quite a different direction. The brief account of the Syro-Ephraimitic Conflict in Isa 7:1–9 (cf., 2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28) sets up the sign of Immanuel in Isa 7:10–17 where the key issue is whether or not Ahaz and others who hear Isaiah’s message will have faith (Isa 7:9; cf., Isa 28:16; 53:1). The sign of Isa 7:14–15 is that of the maiden who is pregnant and about to give birth to a son whose name will be Immanuel and who will be eating curds and honey at the time when he comes of age and is able to distinguish good from bad. Before this time comes, the Syro-Ephraimitic threat will be no more (Isa 7:16). The time of curds and honey is well after the immediate historical circumstances of 735– 732 B.C. (Isa 7:22). Thus, Ahaz is to put his faith in the sign of a child whom he may never see. A decision on whether Isa 7:10–17 has more to do with judgment than deliverance turns on the interpretation of verse 17. The majority of commentators see this verse as an anticipation of the Assyrian threat to Judah in 701 B.C., yet in context such an understanding of verse 17 seems remarkably out of place. G. B. Gray noted this problem well: Attempts have been made to discover a connection, either between vv. 1–16 and 17–25 or, v. 17 being omitted as a gloss, between 1–16 and 18–25. If v. 17 (with its reference to Judah) be omitted, 18–25 can be treated (Hackm. p. 66) as an amplification in detail of what is stated summarily, but sufficiently, in v. 16b, the ruin of Ephraim and Syria. But the theory of Du., Che., Marti, that v. 17 is a gloss written to connect vv. 1–16 and vv. 18–25 founders on the fact that it is particularly between v. 16 and v. 17 that the lack of connection is most conspicuous; G feeling this supplied a0lla_ at the beginning of v. 17.20

Gray’s solution to the problem was to view verses 1–16 and 17–25 as two passages of independent origin placed together perhaps because of the similarity between verses 15 and 22. But this is by no means the only option. It is certainly possible to read verse 17 as an anticipation of the Assyrian invasion of the northern kingdom. The reference to the division of the kingdom in 930 B.C. (1 Kgs 12) could very well be a reference to the beginning of the end for the north when it fell under the sins of Jeroboam. Thus, when the text says, “The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon the house of your father…,” it does not necessarily mean that judgment will come upon Judah. Rather, the sense of the context is that the Assyrian invasion of the north will have direct implications for Judah. The fact that Isa 8:1–4 reiterates the Assyrian threat to Damascus and Samaria would seem to suggest that the destruction of the north is in view

86

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

throughout this section. This leaves the reader with the impression that the sign of Immanuel is primarily a message of hope in which Isaiah’s hearers can place their faith. Attempts to identify Immanuel with Isaiah’s son Maher-shalal-hash-baz depend on the similarity in pattern between Isa 7:14–16 and Isa 8:3–4 (Ibn Ezra, Rashi). In both passages the birth of a son with a peculiar name serves as a sign (Isa 8:18) about the removal of the Syro-Ephraimitic threat at the hands of the Assyrian king. But a closer look at the terminology reveals a deliberate effort to distinguish the two. The woman in Isa 7:14 is a maiden, but the woman in Isa 8:3 is a prophetess. The name of the son in Isa 7:14 is Immanuel, but the name of the son in Isa 8:3 is Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Rejection of evil and choice of good describe the child’s coming of age in Isa 7:15, whereas Isa 8:4 describes this in terms of the child’s ability to address his parents. The time of curds and honey is an important element in Isa 7:15– 16, but it is not a part of Isa 8:3–4 at all. This last factor seems to be what separates the two temporally. The child of Isa 7:14–16 will come of age at some undefined time beyond the present conflict (Isa 7:22) and is to be the object of faith (Isa 7:9), but Isaiah’s son will appear as a visible, contemporary sign. The composition of the book requires the interpreter to continue through the unit of Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7) before making a decision about Immanuel. The Assyrian invasion of the north will have serious secondary implications for Judah, including tribute and the threat of 701 B.C., but God is ultimately with his people (Isa 8:5–10). Those who reject Isaiah’s message will stumble and fall (Isa 8:11–15). Isaiah himself decides to bind Testimony and seal Torah and wait on the future work of God (Isa 8:16–18; cf., Hab 2:2–4; 3:16–19; Dan 8:26; 12:4, 9, 12–13). It is the revelation of Torah and Testimony over against any alternative modes of revelation that will see the people through the darkness to the light at the end of the tunnel (Isa 8:19–23 [Eng., 9:1]): “As for the people who are walking in darkness, they will see a great light; as for those who are dwelling in a land of darkness, a light will shine on them” (Isa 9:1 [Eng., 9:2]). This light is the birth of a child, a son who will have the government on his shoulders (Isa 9:5 [Eng., 9:6]). He will be the ideal Davidic king who will reign with justice, righteousness, and peace over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–16; Isa 9:6 [Eng., 9:7]; 32:1; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 34:24; Hos 3:5; Zech 9:9–10; Ps 72; Dan 2:34–35, 44–45; 7:13–14). The child of Isa 9:5–6 (Eng., 9:6–7) is none other than the child of Isa 7:14, the Davidic king at the center of Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7). Immanuel is “God with us” (Isa 7:14), and the Davidic king is “Mighty God” (Isa 9:5

Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah

87

[Eng., 9:6]; cf., 10:21). Attempts to identify this king with Hezekiah run into several problems. Otto Kaiser noted the chronological difficulty with this identification, but the issue goes much deeper.21 Neither Hezekiah nor any other Judean king matches the description here or the extended description in Isa 11:1–10. It is possible that the descriptions are mere hyperbole, but why does the final composition of Isaiah show no signs of any effort to make explicit the link between these texts and the Hezekiah of chapters 36–39? Why would the opening section of the book preserve hyperbolic descriptions of Hezekiah only to disappoint the reader later with the reality of the narratives? The hermeneutical approach of Brevard Childs here is much more faithful to the final form of the text. Childs encourages readers to resist the temptation to historicize the text, making it into a record of misguided hopes.22 He urges recognition of the forces at work in the shaping of a text intended to function as Scripture. He sees a clear link between Isa 7:14 and 9:5–6 (Eng., 9:6–7) and a development within this unit that highlights the role of this individual as messianic.23 How could the author have been more explicitly messianic? For those who insist that messianism was primarily a post-biblical, Second-Temple phenomenon, it is important to reckon with the final shaping of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole that took place in the late post-exilic period.24 According to Horbury, it is this factor that makes the Hebrew Bible a messianic document itself: Yet although the lengthy development of messianism from the Old Testament is obvious, not least when the influence of messianic prototypes is considered, it has also become clear that messianism is important within the Old Testament. It flourished especially in the period of the collecting and editing of the books, it deeply influenced the ancient versions, notably the Septuagint and the Targums, but within the corpus of Hebrew scriptures it was integrally linked with the future hopes which form a great theme both of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets, and from the inception of Davidic monarchy and the Israelite capture of Jerusalem it was bound up with the traditions of kingship in Zion.25

Horbury has in view specifically the major poems of the Pentateuch, prophetic texts such as Isa 9:5–6 (Eng., 9:6–7), and royal psalms. It is this stage of the composition of the Hebrew Bible that Old Testament scholarship in general has neglected.26 And it is for this reason that studies of Isaiah have failed to recognize the messianic nature of the text. It is thus of great importance to see how the parts fit together. Not only do the “woe” oracles and the refrain frame Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7) as a special unit, but also the preceding section of Isa 2:1–5:7 sets the stage for something eschatological. As is so often the case in the Prophets, the prophet

88

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

speaks from the context of his particular historical setting, but that setting simply becomes an occasion to declare God’s future work. Thus, texts such as Isa 5:25–30 and Isa 33:1, which in isolation appear to be about Assyria, now seem to depict an unidentified eschatological enemy not unlike Gog of Ezekiel 38–39. The parallel structuring in Isaiah 24–33 has the same effect. The eschatology of Isaiah 24–27 has a major impact on the reader’s understanding of the “woe” oracles in Isaiah 28–33 and the hope of a king in Isaiah 32. These texts no longer appear as mere vestiges of ancient conflicts.

Conclusion The composition of Isa 5:8–10:19 is a conscious attempt to frame Isa 6:1–9:6 (Eng., 9:7) and create an innertextual link between Isaiah 2–12 and Isaiah 24–35. The proposal of this appendix depends upon recognition of the compositional technique that runs throughout the book and connects the distant parts with one another (e.g., Isa 2:2–5; 26:19; cf., Dan 2:28, 34–35, 44–45; 10:14; 12:2). The current state of scholarship encourages interpreters to look beyond the immediate context of any one particular unit for clues to compositional activity on higher levels. Such an approach has direct implications for an accurate understanding of Matthew’s quote of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23.

Application to Other Biblical Books: Isaiah

89

Notes 1

John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009). Sailhamer also discusses composition on the level of the Hebrew Bible as a whole (see also Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible [New York: Peter Lang, 2009]). 2 At the very least, the doxologies that conclude the first four “books” of the Psalter provide evidence of composition beyond the level of the individual psalm (Pss 41:14 [Eng., 41:13]; 72:18–20; 89:53 [Eng., 89:52]; 106:48). 3 John Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 167) offers a summary of this discussion: “Duhm and Wright interpose 5:25–30 between 9:6 and 7 (Eng. 7 and 8) to begin the section. Smith [cf., Ewald, Gray, and Thomas] puts 5:25 between 9:6 and 7 (Eng. 7 and 8) and 5:26–30 between 10:4 and 5. Driver (NEB) does the same with vv. 24 and 25, but leaves vv. 26–30 in place. Ziegler leaves 5:8–30 where they are but transposes 10:1–4, putting it between 5:24 and 25. Kaiser and Wildberger interchange the two passages (!), resulting in 5:8–24; 10:1–4 and 9:7–20 (Eng. 8–21); 5:25– 30. Holladay, noting the lack of agreement, merely proposes to make 5:8–30; 9:7 (Eng. 8)– 10:4 a unit, with 6:1–9:7 (Eng. 7) having been inserted in the middle.” 4 Conrad E. L’Heureux, “The Redactional History of Isaiah 5.1–10.4,” in In the Shelter of Elyon, ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer, JSOTSup 31 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 99–119. 5 Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., “Structure, Style, and the Prophetic Message: An Analysis of Isaiah 5:8–30,” BibSac 143 (1986): 46–60. 6 Bernhard W. Anderson, “‘God with Us’—In Judgment and in Mercy: The Editorial Structure of Isaiah 5–10 (11),” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard Childs, ed. Gene M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 230–245. 7 H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 132–144. 8 Thus, Joseph Blenkinsopp, who provides his own unique rearrangement of the text, acknowledges the function of the present form (Isaiah 1–39 [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 211). See also Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 41–44. 9 Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 46. 10 Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” VT 34 (1984): 296. 11 See Childs, Isaiah, 542–547. 12 W. H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible, with Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 247–259; C. A. Evans, “On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah”, VT 38 (1988): 129–147. 13 Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, 186–187. 14 Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” 298–300. 15 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1922), 14–15. 16 See the table in Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 38. 17 Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” 312–314.

90

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament 18

Compare and contrast the approach of Hans-Peter Müller, “Glauben und Bleiben: Zur Denkschrift Jesajas Kapitel vi 1–viii 18,” in Studies on Prophecy (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 25–54. 19 Horbury argues that the Old Testament books emerged collectively as a messianic document in the Persian period, yet the biblical literature from this period also featured a particular interest in God as king without reference to a messianic figure (Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ [London: SCM, 1998], 37–46). 20 George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912, 1928), 136. 21 Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, trans. R. A. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 102. 22 Childs, Isaiah, 80–81. 23 See also Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible, trans. David E. Orton (Leiden: Deo, 2005), 691. 24 R. Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah, (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007). 25 Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 35. 26 With reference to this stage, John Sailhamer comments, “Not only do the books of the Hebrew Bible have authors, but also the Hebrew Bible as a whole and as a canon is the product of composition and authorship” (“Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002], 30).

Appendix Two The Septuagint of Jeremiah

Chapter four offered a concise survey of variant literary editions of biblical books and concluded with a decision on which edition of the Twelve to follow. Such a decision is not a minor issue in a book that puts a premium on the compositional strategy of Hosea through Malachi. In an effort to help the reader appreciate the significance of the phenomenon of variant literary editions in the textual history of the Hebrew Bible, the following appendix presents an in-depth look into one of the most outstanding instances of variation: the Septuagint and Masoretic Text of Jeremiah.

Introduction The Septuagint of Jeremiah is roughly one sixth shorter than the Masoretic Text. It also features a remarkably different arrangement of the nations corpus (Jer 49:34–39; 46:2–28; 50–51; 47; 49:7–22, 1–6, 28–33, 23–27; 48) placed between Jer 25:13 and 25:15. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls many thought that these differences were due to the work of the translator.1 But the agreement in shortness and arrangement of 4QJerb (Jer 9:21–10:21) has revealed the existence of a different Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Jeremiah. Furthermore, the work of the translator is generally faithful to the original and not paraphrastic, suggesting that the translator would not have undertaken any large scale modifications.2 Scholars now agree that there are two editions of the book of Jeremiah, one earlier (Septuagint) and one later (Masoretic Text).3 But insight into the theological differences between these two editions has not increased in proportion to knowledge of the book’s textual situation. In his relatively recent theology of the Old Testament, Rolf Rendtorff states, “Apart from the certainly remarkable different positioning of the oracles to the nations, however, the LXX version does not present any notable differences in content by comparison with the Hebrew.”4 This is not to say, however, that no

92

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

attempts have been made to identify the different messages of the two editions.5 It is only to say that there is much more work left to be done. This appendix is an attempt to describe the theological message of the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Jeremiah in contrast to that of the Masoretic Text. Examination of the major junctures in the composition of the book will be the primary means of uncovering this message. The discussion begins with a survey of the editorial notices in the book, such as Jer 25:13. From there it will move to the framework of the first half of the book (Jer 1:1–2:13 and 25:1–13). Then follows an account of the variation in arrangement and placement of the nations corpus. The latter part of the article will treat two passages: Jer 33:14–26 (the longest continuous passage not in the Septuagint) and Jeremiah 52 (a second account of the fall of Jerusalem in the book [cf., Jer 39] with a close relationship to 2 Kgs 24:18– 25:30). This analysis demonstrates the essentially eschatological perspective of the first edition of the book in contrast to the more historical orientation of the second edition. The books of Ezekiel and Daniel will serve to corroborate the evidence for this.

Editorial Notices Editorial notices in this section are not necessarily the work of later editors/redactors or scribes. Some are in fact compositional notices from the author of the final form of the book. For example, the opening verses of Jeremiah (Jer 1:1–3) certainly provide the sort of information common to editorial headings added elsewhere in the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 27:1). But these verses also constitute one of the final pieces of the compositional puzzle of Jeremiah. They are an integral part of the book and serve to associate the book as a whole with the prophet Jeremiah. Such compositional notices can be helpful clues to the way in which the author has put together the macrostructure of the book. The book of Jeremiah contains numerous formulaic introductions to subunits, but these are not the concern of the present section. The first macrostructural concluding notice occurs in Jer 25:13: “And I will bring upon that land all my words that I spoke about it, all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah prophesied concerning all the nations.” It is pure speculation to guess what the “original” contents of this “book/document” (rps) may have been. Within the final composition of Jeremiah, however, this notice functions to delineate the first half of the book (Jer 1:1–25:13).

The Septuagint of Jeremiah

93

Jeremiah 36 is likely an account of the making of at least part of the book to which Jer 25:13 refers.6 In this chapter Jeremiah dictates a scroll to his scribe, Baruch, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 36:1–8). Baruch subsequently gives a public reading of the scroll in Jer 36:9–13. He then reads the scroll to the leaders who, upon hearing the contents of the scroll, advise Baruch and Jeremiah to go into hiding (Jer 36:14–19). The leaders put the scroll in a safe place and communicate the words of the scroll to the king (Jer 36:20). The king then commands Jehudi to bring in the scroll itself, but after the reading of only three or four columns he tears the scroll and throws it into the fire (Jer 36:21–26; cf., 2 Kgs 22–23). Finally, there is a rewriting of the scroll (Jer 36:27–32), but this time words are added (Jer 36:32). The delineation of Jer 1:1–25:13 has important implications for interpretation of the first half of the book. The framework of this unit is Jer 1:1–19 and 25:1–13. The front end of this framework is an introduction to the major themes of the book to which Jer 25:1–13 forms a fitting and climactic conclusion. These themes include: divine presence (Jer 1:4–9), judgment and restoration (Jer 1:10), the enemy from the north (Jer 1:13–15), idolatry (Jer 1:16), and opposition from the leaders and the general populace (Jer 1:18). The conclusion in Jer 25:1–13 echoes these concerns and speaks of judgment at the hands of the enemy from the north for the idolatry of the people of Judah and Jerusalem. A decision between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of this conclusion is ultimately a decision between a historical prophecy and an eschatological one (see below). The last part of Jer 25:13—“which Jeremiah prophesied concerning all the nations”—is actually the heading for the following nations corpus in the Septuagint, which begins with Elam in Jer 49:34–39. But the Septuagint lacks a formal conclusion to its section on the nations at the close of Jeremiah 48. Its omission of Jer 48:45–47, however, could be due to scribal oversight (see below). The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, adds its own introduction to the nations corpus in Jer 46:1, which does not appear in the Septuagint. It also adds a concluding notice in Jer 51:64b—“thus far the words of Jeremiah”—which does not appear in the Septuagint and which separates Jeremiah 52 from the main body of the book. It is not clear, however, whether this notice refers to the book of Jeremiah as a whole or simply to the “book” of words against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51 (Jer 51:60). It is also possible that it refers to the nations corpus as a whole in the final form of the Masoretic Text. Two more references to a “book” with large-scale implications occur in Jer 30:2 and 45:1. In Jer 30:2, Jeremiah receives instruction from the LORD to write his words. Most agree that this book includes at least some parts of

94

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Jeremiah 30–31. But within the final composition of Jeremiah this book has now become Jeremiah 30–33, a collection of four chapters with similar language and a similar outlook on future restoration. Jeremiah 45:1 refers back to the scroll of Jeremiah 36. The remainder of the chapter is a brief message from the LORD to Baruch through the prophet Jeremiah. This text is the final chapter of Jeremiah in the Septuagint before the appendix in Jeremiah 52. It thus serves as a kind of scribal colophon, which probably appeared at one time after Jer 25:1–13.

Jeremiah 25:1–13 As mentioned above, Jer 25:1–13 and Jer 1:1–19 form the framework of the first half of the book. The strategic placement of Jer 25:1–13 in the composition of the book makes it crucial to the overall theological message of Jeremiah. It is therefore imperative for interpreters to take full account of the major differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic Text of this passage. The following is a translation of Jer 25:1–13 intended to show these differences. The material in italics appears in the Masoretic Text (MT) but not in the Septuagint (LXX). (1) The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, that is, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, (2) which Jeremiah the prophet spoke to all the people of Judah and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, (3) “From the thirteenth year of Josiah, the son of Amon, the king of Judah, until this day, these twenty-three years, the word of the LORD has come to me, I spoke to you rising early and speaking, and you have not listened. (4) And the LORD sent (LXX: “I sent”; cf., Jer 7:25) to you all his servants (LXX: “my servants”; cf., Jer 7:25) the prophets rising early and sending, and you did not listen and you did not incline your ear to hear, (5) saying, ‘Return then each of you from your evil way and from the evil of your deeds in order that you may dwell on the land that the LORD gave to you and your fathers from everlasting to everlasting. (6) And do not walk after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them so that you do not provoke me with the work of your hands to cause evil (MT: “and I will not cause evil”) for you.’ (7) “And you did not listen to me,” says the LORD, “in order to provoke me with the work of your hands for your own evil.” (8) “Therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Because you did not listen to (LXX: “believe”) my words, (9) behold, I am sending and I will take all families (LXX: “family”) of north,’ says the LORD, ‘and to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations around, and I will exterminate them and make them into an object of horror and hissing and everlasting ruins (LXX: “reproach”). (10) And I will destroy from them the sound of rejoicing and the sound

The Septuagint of Jeremiah

95

of joy, the sound of a bridegroom and the sound of a bride, the sound of millstones (LXX: “the smell of myrrh”) and the light of a lamp. (11) And all this land will become a wasteland, an object of horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. (12) At the completion of the seventy years, I will visit upon the king of Babylon and upon that nation” says the LORD, “the punishment for their iniquity and upon the land of the Chaldeans, and make it into everlasting ruins. (13) And I will bring upon that land all my words, which I spoke against it— everything that is written in this book (LXX and MT differ on role of v. 13bb).

In particular, it is the special concern of the Masoretic Text to identify the enemy from the north as Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon (Jer 25:1, 9, 11, 12) and to understand Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years in terms of a literal period of time (Jer 25:11). This becomes a problem for the Masoretic Text in Jer 50:3 where the enemy from the north comes against Babylon. This enemy remains unidentified in Jeremiah 50 and 51. The references to the Medes in Jer 51:11, 28 do not speak of Media as the enemy or nation from the north. On the other hand, the Septuagint leaves the enemy from the north unidentified in Jer 25:1–13. It also opens up the possibility that the prophecy of seventy years refers to a non-literal period of time—a complete, indefinite period of time in accordance with usage of the numbers seven, ten, and seventy elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 4:24; see Ep Jer 2). To be sure, the Septuagint is well aware of the seventy years of Babylonian captivity in Jer 29:10 (also Zech 1:12; 7:5; 2 Chr 36:21), but the scope of its understanding of Jeremiah’s prophecy is much broader than the sixth century B.C. In the Septuagint of Jeremiah, the seventy years of Babylonian captivity is a figure of tribulation in the last days before the defeat of the final enemy of the people of God. The interpretation of the enemy from the north in Ezekiel 38–39 seems to depend on the open-ended Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Jer 25:1– 13 rather than the historicized version of the Masoretic Text. According to Ezekiel, the enemy from the north is not Babylon or any other historical kingdom, but an eschatological enemy named “Gog” who will appear “at the end of the days” (Ezek 38:14–16; cf., the LXX of Num 24:7; see also Rev 20:8).7 This is the one of whom the LORD spoke “in former days” by his servants the prophets (Ezek 38:17)—undoubtedly a reference to Jeremiah’s description of the enemy from the north. The book of Daniel also bears witness to the importance of the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Jer 25:1–13. When Daniel reads the book of Jeremiah in the first year of Darius (Dan 9:1–2), his conclusion seems to be very much in line with the literal prophecy of seventy years in Jer 29:10 and in the Masoretic Text of Jer 25:11 (Dan 9:3–19). He expects to see restoration from Babylonian captivity in his own day. But then the angel

96

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Gabriel appears on the scene with a decidedly different understanding of the prophecy of seventy years (Dan 9:20–23). According to Gabriel, “seventy sevens” are determined for Daniel’s people and the holy city (Dan 9:24). This period of time includes everything from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the appearance and cutting off of the Messiah (“anointed one”) and the destruction of the final enemy (Dan 9:24–27). These events clearly did not transpire over the next 490 days. Furthermore, attempts to make this into 490 years falter on the fact that the Hebrew word for “seven/week” ((wb#) does not mean “a week of years” anywhere in ancient Hebrew literature. Gabriel’s multiplication by seven is comparable to Jesus’ response when Peter asked him if he should forgive his brother seven times (Matt 18:21). The point is not to count to 490. Rather, the numbers seven and seventy often have an indefinite sense in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, Gabriel’s interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years fits very well with the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Jer 25:1–13.

The Nations Corpus The placement of the nations corpus in the Septuagint directly after Jer 1:1– 25:13 is very similar to the placement of the nations sections in Isaiah (Isa 13–23) and Ezekiel (Ezek 25–32), which appear after the first major division of both books (Isa 1–12 and Ezek 4–24). The placement of this section at the end of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah is somewhat odd, yet consistent with the reworking of the text of Jeremiah in the second edition of the book. It appears that the Masoretic Text has rearranged the oracles to fit with the sequence of nations in Jer 25:19–26: Jeremiah 46 Jeremiah 47 Jeremiah 48:1–49:22 Jeremiah 49:34–39 Jeremiah 50–51

Egypt (Jer 25:19) Philistia (Jer 25:20) Moab, Ammon, and Edom (Jer 25:21) Elam (Jer 25:25) Babylon (Jer 25:26)8

Egypt is a fitting place to begin after chapters 42–44. Also, because the Masoretic Text sees the downfall of Babylon as the culmination of Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years, it maintains a purely historical view of these oracles and places them at the end of an edition of the book of Jeremiah that has little relevance beyond the events of the sixth century B.C.

The Septuagint of Jeremiah

97

The Septuagint has cast these oracles within an eschatological framework: Jeremiah 49:34–39 Jeremiah 46:2–28 Jeremiah 50–51 Jeremiah 47 Jeremiah 49:7–22 Jeremiah 49:1–6 Jeremiah 49:28–33 Jeremiah 49:23–27 Jeremiah 48

“At the end of the days…” (Jer 49:39)

“At the end of the days…” (Jer 48:47)

The phrase “at the end of the days” only occurs two other times in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 23:20; 30:24). As mentioned earlier, the Septuagint does not have Jer 48:45–47. Nevertheless, Jer 48:45–47a probably appeared in the original Hebrew text behind the Septuagint. It is easy to see how a scribe or translator could have skipped from “thus says the LORD” at the end of Jer 48:44b to “thus says the LORD” at the end of Jer 48:47a, accidentally omitting the intervening text (homoioteleuton). This would leave only Jer 48:47b as an editorial addition in the Masoretic Text (cf., Jer 51:64b). The references to the restoration of Elam and Moab (Jer 48:47; 49:39) are consistent with other statements in the nations sections of both Isaiah and Jeremiah, which look forward not only to the judgment of the nations but also their restoration (e.g., Isa 19:16–25; Jer 46:26b). The final verses of Jeremiah 48 also feature quotes from Num 21:28 and 24:17 (Jer 48:45), the latter of which is part of Balaam’s last oracle in which he speaks of a messianic king who will appear “at the end of the days” (Num 24:14) and defeat his enemies. Jeremiah 48 is likely not directly dependent upon Isaiah 15–16 even though the two share a large amount of material. It is more likely that they both are dependent upon a common source. The most compelling evidence for this is the omission of Isa 16:1–5—a possible messianic passage—in Jeremiah 48. It is highly unlikely that the author of Jeremiah would have passed over the description of the king in Isa 16:5, which is so similar to his own description of the messianic king in Jer 23:5– 6. In contrast to the historicized Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint casts the oracles to the nations as images of future judgment and restoration in the last days. In this way the text has ongoing relevance as Scripture for future generations beyond the events of the sixth century B.C.

98

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

This is not unlike what happens in Isaiah 13 where the downfall of Babylon becomes a picture of the future Day of the LORD.9 Those who were responsible for the final shape of the biblical books were not merely concerned with addressing their contemporaries, a so-called “original audience.” They manifestly had a great deal of interest in the way their texts would function in the community of faith beyond their lifetime.

Jeremiah 33:14–26 Jeremiah 33:14–26 is the longest continuous passage in the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah not found in the Septuagint.10 The first part of this passage is an exegesis of Jer 23:5–6, perhaps taking its cue from a messianic reading of Jer 33:13 (see Tg. Jon.). Jeremiah 33:14 takes “‘Behold, days are coming, says the LORD,’ and I will establish” from Jer 23:5 and inserts new material before “for David” in verse 15, forcing the beginning of Jer 33:15 to restart the introduction. The added material serves to refer the reader to the earlier text of Jer 23:5–6. Jer 33:15 uses the verb “sprout” (xmc) instead of the verb “establish” (Mwq) from Jer 23:5 and replaces “righteous branch” (xmc qydc) with “branch of righteousness” (hqdc xmc).11 This verse also omits from Jer 23:5 the clause, “And a king will reign and be wise.” The differences between Jer 23:6 and 33:16 are several: “In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in security. And this is his name by which he will be called: the LORD our righteousness” (Jer 23:6). “In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell in security. And this is what it will be called: the LORD our righteousness” (Jer 33:16).

Jeremiah 33:16 has shifted the focus from the messianic king to the city of Jerusalem. The next part of the passage features an interesting mix of statements about the Davidic covenant (Jer 33:17) and a supposed covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:18). According to the Masoretic Text of Jer 33:18, “for the priests, the Levites” a man will not be cut off from before the LORD offering burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices. Some textual witnesses have two groups here: “for the priests and the Levites” (cf., Jer 33:21b). The apposition of these terms occurs elsewhere (e.g., Deut). The coordination of the two is frequent in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. But from what follows it would seem that the Aaronic priesthood is in view and not the levitical priesthood (cf., Ezek 43:19; 44:15). It was the prerogative of the Aaronic

The Septuagint of Jeremiah

99

priesthood to carry out the duties of Jer 33:18 (Lev 1–7), not the levitical priesthood (Num 3). The text of Jer 33:19–26 roots the assurance of the covenants with David and the Levites in God’s covenant with creation, the Noahic covenant (Gen 8:22; 9). This move probably imitates the earlier connection between the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34) and the covenant with creation (Jer 31:35–37). There is no question about the eternal nature of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7; 23:5), but it is appropriate to ask where in Scripture an eternal covenant with the Levites appears. There are several texts that speak of a covenant with Aaron and his sons, descendants of Levi (Lev 2:13; Num 18:19; 25:10– 13; cf., 1 Sam 2:35), but not with the Levites generally. The covenant in Deut 33:9 is not a reference to a separate covenant with the Levites but a reference to the faithfulness of the Levites in Exod 32:26–29. The covenant in Mal 2:4 is not a covenant with “the Levites” but with “Levi,” the tribe of Aaron. It is evident from the context of Mal 1:6–2:9 that the responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood are in view. Nehemiah 13:29 makes a careful distinction between “the covenant of the priesthood” on the one hand and “the Levites” on the other, which the Septuagint renders diaqh/khv th=v i9eratei/av kai\ tou\v Leui/tav. When the absolute position involves two or more nouns in a construct chain, the word in the construct often repeats before each one.12 This is not always the case, but given the above evidence it is unlikely that Neh 13:29 is the only text that refers to a covenant with the Levites, especially in such an ambiguous manner. Thus, while commonly understood to speak of a covenant with the priesthood and the Levites, this text actually refers to the defilement of three separate entities: the priesthood, the covenant of the priesthood, and the Levites. It seems then that Jer 33:14–26 reflects the interest of a particular historical group (the Levites) in the post-exilic period. It is certainly not consistent with Jer 23:5–6, which is eschatological, nor is it consistent with the generally negative view of the priesthood elsewhere in the book (e.g., Jer 2:8). The text is the product of a priestly campaign, using Jer 23:5–6 and 31:35–37 as leverage to promote a levitical covenant alongside the Davidic covenant and the new covenant. Once again the Masoretic Text has included a text that historicizes the message of the book and bears no relationship to the eschatological outlook of the first edition of Jeremiah (cf., Zech 6:12–13; Ps 110).

100

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament Jeremiah 52

Jeremiah 52 is the second account of the destruction of Jerusalem in the book of Jeremiah. The first appears in Jeremiah 39. Furthermore, the account in chapter 52 is virtually identical to that of 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30. Why does the book of Jeremiah have two accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem? What is the relationship between Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30? The answers to these questions will again depend upon a proper understanding of the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. Chapter 39 has an important function within the book of Jeremiah as a whole.13 It serves to vindicate Jeremiah as the true prophet over against the false prophets (Deut 18:22; Jer 23:9–40; 27–28). Jeremiah’s preaching had long threatened judgment at the hands of the Babylonians for the people’s idolatry, but the false prophets had insisted on preaching peace (Jer 6:14). Jeremiah 39 brings this clash of the prophets to a point of reckoning. This chapter is somewhat light on the details of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, but it provides the basic picture and sets the stage for chapters 40–44. Jeremiah 52, on the other hand, is a much fuller account of the downfall of Jerusalem. The question inevitably arises whether Jeremiah 52 is dependent upon 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30 or vice versa. Of course, there is always the possibility of a third, common source. A glance at the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text of this chapter shows that the Masoretic Text has expanded quite a bit on an earlier version. It is arguable that Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30 in the Masoretic Text have both expanded upon this earlier version represented by the Septuagint. In some cases they expand in different directions. For example, Jer 52:2–3 and 2 Kgs 24:19–20 in the Masoretic Text both add an evaluation of Zedekiah that does not appear in the Septuagint of Jeremiah 52. But later in the Masoretic Text of Jer 52:28–30 there is an expansion that does not appear in the Septuagint or 2 Kgs 25. The role of the appendix in Jeremiah 52 depends upon whether it is part of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah or the Septuagint. Within the Masoretic Text Jeremiah 52 is simply a final, concluding reference to the historical fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. But within the Septuagint this chapter plays a role very similar to that of 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30. Not everyone agrees on the meaning of the conclusion to Kings.14 Some see the release of Jehoiachin from prison in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 (Jer 52:31–34) in a negative light, a pitiful picture of the demise of the Davidic/Judean monarcy. Others see a glimmer of hope here in the fact that a descendant of David is still alive at the end of the book. But there is a measure of truth in both views. Every king

The Septuagint of Jeremiah

101

in the book of Kings from Solomon to Hezekiah and Josiah has failed to match the picture of the ideal son of David in 2 Samuel 7. Yet the covenant with David is still intact at the end of the book and serves as the basis for the future hope of the Prophets and the Writings (Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; 11:1– 10; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 34:23–24; Hos 3:4–5; Mic 5:1–4a [Eng., 5:2–5a]; Zech 9:9–10; Pss 2; 89; Dan 2; 7; 9). In much the same way the Septuagint of Jeremiah has consistently pointed the reader beyond the immediate circumstances of the sixth century B.C. and now in Jeremiah 52 employs the account of the release of Jehoiachin to remind the reader of the messianic hope of Jer 23:5–6 in store for the future of the people of God.

Conclusion The difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah is no mere reshuffling of the same material with the end result of an identical message. If the final composers of the biblical books communicated their theology primarily through the way they put their texts together, then it is imperative for interpreters to understand the meaning of major changes in the structural make-up of a book. In the case of Jeremiah, it is not simply a difference of length between the two editions of the book. At every major compositional juncture of the book the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are differences between an eschatological version and a historicized version. To understand these differences is also to appreciate the eschatological reading of Jeremiah in the New Testament (Jer 31:15, 31–34; Matt 2:18; Heb 8:8–12; 10:16–17).

102

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Notes 1

E.g., Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857), 93–95. 2 “…when we find major deviations from the MT in a faithful translation, they probably reflect a different Hebrew text. On the other hand, if a translator was not faithful to his parent text in small details, even paraphrasing it occasionally, he could have inserted major changes in the translation” (Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 33). 3 See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 319–27; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 29. 4 Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, trans. David E. Orton (Leiden: Deo, 2005), 203. 5 See John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 25–37; Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 39–41, 97. 6 See William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 16–20. 7 For the use of the phrase “at the end of the days” see John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2009), 332–35. 8 “Sheshak” in Jer 25:26b is atbash for “Babylon” (see Tg. Jon.). 9 See Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 124– 25. 10 Jeremiah 39:4–13 also does not appear in the Septuagint, perhaps due to homoioteleuton. 11 The Leningrad Codex has “branch of righteousness” in Jer 33:15. A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts have “righteous branch.” Of course, it is possible that “branch of righteousness” means “righteous branch,” but the textual variation would seem to indicate that ancient readers made a distinction between the two in this case. 12 Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 138–40. 13 Once again, the omission of verses 4–13 in the Septuagint of this chapter is most likely due to homoioteleuton. The scribe or translator accidentally skipped from “the king of Babylon” at the end of Jer 39:3 to “the king of Babylon” at the end of Jer 39:13, omitting the intervening text. 14 See Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 462–65.

Bibliography Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. San Francisco: Harper, 1999. Albertz, R. and C. Westermann. “xAw%r rûah spirit.” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Vol. 3, 1202–1220. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997. Anderson, Bernhard W. “‘God with Us’—In Judgment and in Mercy: The Editorial Structure of Isaiah 5–10 (11).” In Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard Childs, ed. Gene M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson, 230–45. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Biblica et orientalia 41. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Bar-Efrat, S. “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 154–73. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Beale, Gregory K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008. Berding, Kenneth, and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1977. ———. Isaiah 1–39. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. ———. “Matthew.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 1–109. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. Vol. 2, 9:51–24:53. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Brownlee, W. H. The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible, with Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Burchard, Christoph. “Römer 9:25: e0n tw|~ 9Wshe/.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1985): 131. Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968. Calvin, John. Harmony of the Pentateuch. Translated by J. King. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989, 2:165. Quoted in Moisés Silva, “Galatians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 803. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. ———. Hosea. Translated by John Owen. Calvin’s Commentaries 8. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. ———. Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum. Translated by John Owen. Calvin’s Commentaries 14. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

104

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Carson, D. A. “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 693–714. Childs, Brevard S. Myth and Reality in the OT. Naperville: Allenson, 1960. ———. The Book of Exodus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ———. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “Structure, Style, and the Prophetic Message: An Analysis of Isaiah 5:8–30.” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 46–60. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings. Anchor Bible 10. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Delitzsch, Franz. Isaiah. Translated by James Martin. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 7. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. Devries, Simon J. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Waco: Word, 1985. Diestel, Ludwig. Geschichte des alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche. Jena: Mauke’s Verlag, 1869. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner’s, 1952. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia, 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1922. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Ernesti, J. A. Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti. Leipzig, 1761. Evans, C. A. “On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah.” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 129–147. Ferreiro, Alberto. The Twelve Prophets. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 14. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Gathercole, Simon J. “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament.” In From Prophecy to Testament: the Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig A. Evans, 126–45. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer, 1857. Gooding, D. W. “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns.” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I– XXXIX. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912, 1928. Gray, John. I & II Kings, 2d ed. London: SCM, 1970. Guthrie, George. “Hebrews.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 919 – 95. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Hagner, D. A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.

Bibliography

105

Ham, Clay Alan. The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope. New Testament Monographs 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Heskett, R. Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. L’Heureux, Conrad E. “The Redactional History of Isaiah 5.1–10.4.” In In the Shelter of Elyon, ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer, 99–119. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. House, Paul. The Unity of the Twelve. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza, 2d ed. New York: Praeger, 1960. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. Kautzsch, E. F., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley, 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Keil, C. F. Nehemiah. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. ———. Minor Prophets. Translated by James Martin. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Diversity and Unity in the New Testament.” In Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann, 144–58. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. Levison, John R. “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of Ecstatic Elders.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (2003): 503–21. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Mays, James L. Hosea. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. McCartney, Dan, and Peter Enns. “Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 97–105. McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. McKinion, Steven A., ed. Isaiah 1–39. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 10. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004. Menken, Martinus J. “The Provenance and Meaning of the Old Testament Quotation in John 6:31.” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 39–56. Menken, Maarten J. J., and Steve Moyise. The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville: B&H, 2009. Michel, Diethelm. Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Bonn: H. Bouvier u. Co., 1960.

106

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Müller, Hans-Peter. “Glauben und Bleiben: Zur Denkschrift Jesajas Kapitel vi 1–viii 18.” In Studies on Prophecy, 25–54. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 217. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. ———. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 218. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. ———, and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Paul, S. M. Amos. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991. von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja.” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 295– 320. ———. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Orton. Leiden: Deo, 2001. Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody, 1986. Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. ———. Introduction to Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. ———. “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 87–96. ——— . “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible.” In Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann, 25–37. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. ———. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009. Schenker, A. Septante et texte Massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14, Cahiers de la Revue biblique 48. Paris: Gabalda, 2000. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie.” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 170–89. Seeligmann, Isac Leo. Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 607–94. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1–39. Louisville: John Knox, 1993. ———. Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Shepherd, Michael B. “Compositional Analysis of the Twelve.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120 (2008): 184–93. ———. Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Bibliography

107

Stevenson, Kenneth, and Michael Glerup, eds. Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 13. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987. Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ———. “3 Kingdoms Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions.” In Flores Florentine: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martínez, ed. A. Hilhorst et al., 345–66. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scriptures.” In Exploring the Origins of the Bible, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, 31–56. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Turner, M. “Holy Spirit.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, 551–58. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. VanderKam, James C. “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2.” In From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. C. A. Evans, 185–205. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. ———. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Duodecim Prophetae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XIII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Index 1 Corinthians 15:55, 24–25 4QXIIa, 75 Abraham, 15, 52 Acts 2:17–21, 31 7:42–43, 40 13:41, 47–48 15, 12 Agag, 35 Agur, 73 Ahab, 70–73 Ahaz, 82, 85 Amos 5:25–27, 38–40 9:12, 12 See also Book of the Twelve Anderson, Bernhard, 80 Aram, 72 Assyria, 16, 17, 82, 85, 86 Augustine, 8 author, divine, 21, 22 Babylon, 94, 95 Baruch, 93 Bethlehem, 41 Bible, Greek, 41–42 Bible, Hebrew. See Hebrew Bible Blomberg, Craig, 41 Book of the Twelve arrangement of, 74–76 compositional seams of, 3–4 compositional unity of, 1 historical evidence for unity of, 2–3 in Qumran, 74 theological purposes of, 76 understanding quotations from, 1 See also individual books books, in Jeremiah, 93–94 bread of life, 37 Brownlee, W. H., 81

Budde, K., 79 Calvin, John, 8 Childs, Brevard, 18, 87 Chisholm, Robert, 80 Chronicles, 74 Codex Alexandrinus, 12, 15 Codex Reuchlinianus, 60 covenant, 52, 54, 55, 57, 98, 99, 101 criticism, 80 curds and honey, 85, 86 Damascus Document, 39, 40, 62 Daniel, 11, 49, 74, 95–96 David and Goliath, story of, 69–70 Day of the LORD in Amos, 38 in Book of Twelve, 3, 4 in Isaiah, 98 in Joel, 23 in Malachi, 64 in Obadiah, 12 theme of, 64 in Zechariah, 59–60 in Zephaniah, 23, 48 Delitzsch, Franz, 10 deliverance, in Isaiah, 85 Denkschrift Hypothesis, 79 Deuteronomy 32, 8–10 Duhm, Bernhard, 82 Dunn, James, 51 Edom, 12 Egypt, 17, 96 Eichrodt, Walther, 25 Eldad, 33, 34, 35 Elijah, 64, 72 Elisha, 72 enemy, 11, 16, 17, 48, 49, 73, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96 Enns, Peter, 18, 19–22

110

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

Ephesians 4:25, 56 Esau, 63 Evans, C. A., 81 exodus in Hosea, 17 imagery of, 22–24 as messianic metaphor, 18 in summaries of Biblical history, 36 Exodus 16, 32–33 Ezekiel 38–39, 95 nations section in, 96 restoration in, 11 variants of, 73 Ezra 2, 35 Ezra-Nehemiah, 35, 36, 74 faith, 14–15, 50–51 “fear,” 51 Festival of Weeks, 31 future in Eldad and Medad’s prophesy, 35 in Micah, 41 in Pentateuch, 11 See also Day of the LORD; Messiah/messianism future works, God’s in Malachi, 64 message of in Habakkuk, 48 orientation to in Micah, 16 theme of in Pentateuch, 87 theme of in Prophets, 87–88 waiting for, 49, 50 See also Messiah/messianism Gathercole, Simon, 52 Gentiles, 8, 10–11, 12, 13 Glaubensthematik, 15 Gog, 35, 95 Gray, G. B., 85 Gray, John, 71–72 Greek Bible, 41–42 Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, 2, 75 Habakkuk 1:5, 47–48 2:3–4, 52–54 2:4, 49–50

composition of, 48–51 exodus theme in, 23 interpretive framework of, 17 Paul’s citation of, 51, 53 place of in Twelve, 52 Haggai 2:6, 54–55 Hazael, 72 Hebrew Bible composition of, 21 messianism in, 84, 87 (See also Messiah/messianism) seven in, 96 seventy in, 96 Spirit in, 31 summaries of Biblical history in, 36 “truth” in, 56 use of in New Testament, 1 variants of, 69 Hebrews 10:37–38, 52–54 Herod, 17 L’Heureux, Conrad, 79–80 Hezekiah, 82, 87 history, Biblical, 36, 40 history, redemptive, 19, 20 honey, 85, 86 Horbury, William, 35, 84, 87 Hosea 2:1, 7–11 3:5, 12 6:6, 14 10, 15–16 11:1, 17, 18–22 13:14, 24–25 exodus imagery in, 22–23 judgment in, 16 Paul’s quotations from, 7–8 Sailhamer on, 18, 19–20 See also Book of the Twelve humanity, 56 Immanuel, 85–87 inspiration, 21–22 Isaiah 5:8–10:19, 84–88 65, 8 65:1, 10–11 Assyria in, 16 composition of, 79–83, 87–88

Index deliverance in, 85 judgment in, 85, 97 messianic king in, 60 nations in, 81, 96, 97 parallels within, 83–84 restoration in, 97 righteousness in, 83 servant songs in, 82–83 similarities of to Jeremiah, 97, 98 variants of, 73 vineyard in, 81 vision of inclusion of Gentiles in, 10 woes in, 81–82, 87, 88 Israel disobedience of to law, 38–39 idolatry of, 11, 16 re-adoption of, 8 restoration of, 22 (See also restoration) Jacob, 63 James, 12 Jeremiah 25, 94–96 33:14–26, 98–99 52, 100–101 books in, 93–94 editorial notes in, 92–94 judgment in, 97 and Matthew 27:3–10, 59 nations corpus in, 96–98 restoration in, 11, 97 similarities of to Isaiah, 97, 98 variants of, 73, 91–92 (See also under Masoretic Text; Septuagint) Jeroboam, 71 Jerusalem, 56, 60, 100 Jesus apostles’ abandonment of, 62 as bread of life, 37 in Matthew 10, 43 as prophet like Moses, 64 rejection of, 13 on women, 15 See also Messiah/messianism Jezebel, 71 Job, 73 Joel 3:1–5, 31

exodus theme in, 23 See also Book of the Twelve John 12:15, 57 19:37, 61 Jonah, 13, 51, 75 See also Book of the Twelve Jones, Barry Alan, 74, 75 Joshua, 34–35, 69 Judas, 59 judgment in Hosea, 16, 24 in Isaiah, 81, 85, 97 of Israel, 16 in Jeremiah, 97 in Malachi 3:1, 64 in Micah, 42 Kaiser, Otto, 87 Kayamanu, 39 Keil, C. F., 8, 37 king, Davidic as good shepherd, 58 in Hosea, 35 in Isaiah, 60, 82, 83, 86 Micah’s depiction of, 42 restoration of, 11, 12 in Zechariah, 57 See also Messiah/messianism king, messianic in Isaiah, 60 in Zechariah, 60 See also Messiah/messianism Kings and Jeremiah, 100–101 in Septuagint, 75 variants of, 70–73 law, 14–15, 33, 36, 37–39, 52 Lemuel, 73 Letter of Aristeas, 41 Levison, John, 34 Levites, 98, 99 Luther, Martin, 21 Magog, 35 Malachi 1:2–3, 63

111

112

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

3:1, 64 composition of, 62 manna, 32, 33 Mark 14:27, 62 Masoretic Text Agag, 35 audience of, 96 Bethlehem in, 41 Daniel, 74 David and Goliath, story of, 69–70 Deuteronomy, 9–10 evidence for unity of Twelve in, 3 Ezekiel, 73 Haggai, 54 Hosea, 15, 24 Jeremiah, 73, 92, 93, 94–96, 98, 99, 100, 101 Job, 73 Joshua, 69 Kings, 70–73 Twelve in, 74–76 Writings in, 73–74 Matthew 2:6, 41–42 2:15, 17, 18–22 10, 43 12, 13 21:5, 57 26:31, 62 27:3–10, 59 quotation of Hosea in, 14 McCartney, Dan, 18, 19–22 McConville, Gordon, 9 Medad, 33, 34, 35 Megilloth, 74 Menken, Martinus, 37 Messiah/messianism description of, 60 exodus as metaphor for, 18 good shepherd as figure of, 58–59 in Habakkuk, 48, 51 and Haggai, 54, 55 in Hebrews, 53 Horbury on, 84, 87 in Hosea, 18, 19, 22 identification of, 20 in Jeremiah, 97, 98, 101 in Micah, 23, 41, 42

rejection of, 7, 63 theory of two, 61 in Zechariah, 56–58, 60, 61, 62 See also future; future works, God’s; king Micah 5:1, 40–42 7:6, 42–43 exodus theme in, 23 See also Book of the Twelve Moo, Doug, 8 Moses, 15, 33–34, 35, 40, 64 MurXII, 3 Naboth, 71, 72 Nahum, 13, 16–17, 23 names, 7 nations in Isaiah, 81, 96, 97 in Jeremiah, 96–98 Nebuchadnezzar, 94, 95 Nehemiah 9, 35–38 13:29, 99 New Testament division with Old Testament, 20 role of, 20 use of Old Testament in, 1 use of quotes from Septuagint in, 52–53 use of quotes from Twelve in, 79 Nineveh, 13, 16 Numbers 11, 32–35 Obadiah, 12 See also Book of the Twelve Old Testament division with New Testament, 20 See also Hebrew Bible Paul citation of Habakkuk by, 47–48, 51, 53 citation of Hosea by, 7–8 citation of Joel 3:1–5 by, 31 doctrine of justification by faith of, 50 on God’s love, 63 speech at Antioch of Pisidia, 47–48 view of Gentiles, 8 view of law vs. Spirit, 38

Index Pentateuch, 11, 15, 18, 19, 32, 35, 52, 69, 87 Pentecost, 31 Peter, 62 potter, 59 priest, redefinition of, 36 priesthood, 98–99 Prophets, 87–88 Proverbs, 73–74 quail, 32, 33 questions, rhetorical, 13 Qumran, 2, 61, 73, 74, 75 Rashi, 9 rebellion, 37 Rendtorff, Rolf, 80, 82, 83, 91 restoration in Ezekiel, 11 in Haggai, 54 in Isaiah, 81, 97 in Jeremiah, 11, 97 in Malachi, 64 in Micah, 42–43 resurrection as, 25 resurrection, 25, 31 righteousness, 50, 83 Romans 9:25–26, 7 10:13, 31 Sabbath, law of, 33 Sailhamer, John, 18, 19–20, 79 Sakkuth, 39 salvation, 24, 31 Samuel, variants of, 69 Schmitt, Hans-Christoph, 15 Second Temple Judaism, 21 Seitz, Christopher, 75, 80 Septuagint audience of, 97–98 Bethlehem in, 41 Deuteronomy, 9–10 Ezekiel, 73 Gog in, 35 Habakkuk, 50 Hosea, 15, 24 Jeremiah, 73, 93, 94–96, 97–98, 100– 101

113

Job, 73 Joshua, 69 Kings, 70–73, 75 New Testament’s use of quotes from, 52–53 Proverbs, 73–74 “truth” in, 56 Twelve, order of, 74–75 servant songs, in Isaiah, 82–83 seven, in Hebrew Bible, 96 seventy, in Hebrew Bible, 96 Shear-jashub, 84 shepherd, 58–59, 61–62 silver, thirty pieces of, 59 Sinai, 32, 40 Sirach, 2 Solomon, 13 Spirit, 31, 33, 34–35, 37–38, 60 Stephen, 39, 40 “sullen,” 72–73 Syro-Ephraimitic Conflict, 85 Targum Jonathan, 41 Targum Neofiti, 34, 35 Targum Onkelos, 35 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, 35 temple, rebuilding of, 54–55 texts, literal vs. metaphorical reading of, 21 Tov, Emmanuel, 9–10, 70 truth, 56 Twelve Prophets. See Book of the Twelve Ulrich, Eugene, 70 VanderKam, James, 31 Vermeylen, J., 79 “vexed,” 72–73 vineyard in Isaiah, 81 Naboth’s, 72 Williamson, H. G. M., 36, 80, 81 woes, in Isaiah, 81–82, 87, 88 women, 15 Zechariah 8:16, 56 9:9–10, 56–58

114

The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament

11:13, 58–59 12:10, 50–61 13:7, 61–62 exodus theme in, 24 messianic king in, 60 tie with Haggai, 55 Zephaniah, 23, 48 Zerubbabel, 35, 55

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, Maryland 21014-1246 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM