THE RHETORICAL APPROACH TO THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD

Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent New Testament Use of Old Testament Lecture Three: THE RHETORICAL APPROACH TO THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD Stephen Campbell In our previous two lectures we introduced some of the key questions involved in u de sta di g the Ne Testa e t s use of the Old. We also i t odu ed se e al of the ke attempts to answering those questions. In this and the next lecture, we will give an in-depth t eat e t of t o o o app oa hes to these uestio s. I use the o d app oa h ith care and intention. We are speaking here of approaches rather than systematic interpretive methods. Within these two broad approaches, one literary and the other theological, there exists a spectrum of methods and practitioners. In the present lecture I will introduce to you the rhetorical approach to understanding the Ne Testa e t s use of the Old. Just as is the ase ith Theologi al I te p etatio of Scripture (see Lecture 4), the rhetorical approach has many strengths as well as weaknesses. For this reason, as ever, the student of the New Testament should exercise discernment and should ultimately attempt to learn from both approaches. In the case of the rhetorical app oa h, the pa ti ula st e gths a e the esult of the app oa h s fou datio o histo i al questions relating, for example, to Second Temple Judaism, Hellenistic schools of rhetoric, the book culture of the first century, and Greco-Roman literacy rates. There is no doubt that each of these lines of inquiry can shed light on the New Testament authors s p a ti e of quoting the Old Testament. In other words, if we can understand — so the logic goes — what Paul in his historical setting was attempting to accomplish by quoting such-and-such text then we can better understand why he used a particular text at a particular juncture in his letter. The discussion within this lecture will predominantly deal with Pauling quotations of Scripture because of individual concerns of Christopher Stanley, who is the exemplar for our purposes here; however the same principles presented here could also be applied to the rest of the New Testament. Rhetorical Arguments As stated above, the principle figure in the current discussion regarding the rhetorical use of the Old Testament within the New is without a doubt Christopher Stanley, who first began to express his theories in 1997. For this reason, we will deal with his proposals in our present lecture. It is important here to ote the ge esis of “ta le s thi ki g. His heto i al app oa h a e o the heels of p olo ged i estigatio o Paul s use of the Old Testa e t that as hea il shaped the dis o e i the sa d s of the Dead “ea “ olls D““ . This discovery had a major impact on many of the disciplines within biblical studies. In the case of New Testament studies, one of the implications of the DSS was the possibility for investigating and understanding how Jews read and interpreted the Old Testament in the period leading up to the New Testament era. This interest in Jewish interpretation had an immediate impact on how biblical scholars understood the use of the Old Testament in the New. This investigation was done almost exclusively on hermeneutical grounds, for example, ho does Paul i te p et Ge esis? 1 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent However, an importa t atal st fo “ta le s ha ge i fo us a e as a esult of the lite a theo k o as “pee h A t Theo de eloped J. L. Austi a d p ese ted i in his book How to Do Things with Words. Speech Act Theory has since had a profound impact on hermeneutics, because it asked the simple, yet profound, question of how we accomplish what we do through our verbal communication: not just conveying information but causing the desired respo se i ou hea e . Fo e a ple the o ds, the doo is ope a instruct a listener, after knocking on a closed door, to open the unlocked door to come in for a scheduled meeting; or these same words can instruct a child to turn around and shut the door that he had left open. Context, voice inflection, and relationship between speaker and listener will determine the desired response of the listener. In turn, other theorists began asking how we accomplish these communicative goals through written communication. These questions then, have found a welcome home in New Testament studies with the help of a simultaneous interest in Greek rhetoric in the field of the lassi s. Fo “ta le s pa t, he states that he as initially interested in asking a different kind of question than what he was seeing in present scholarship. I stead of Ho does Paul interpret Ge esis? “ta le as i te ested i aski g, Ho does Paul use Genesis to persuade his eade s? Ce tai l this is a diffe e t uestio ith a diffe e t concern; its concern is with the rhetoric of Paul rather than the hermeneutic of Paul. This question of rhetoric is the subject of our current lecture. Ou fi st o je ti e he e is to dis uss “ta le s disti tio et ee dis ussio s of Paul s hermeneutic versus the rhetorical impact of his quotations (Stanley 2004, 9–21). Stanley addresses by way of example the series of Old Testament quotations found in Gal 3:6–16 and recognizes that much good work has been done to situate this text within its historical setting. This work has included, among other elements, the teaching that had been introduced into the church that Paul is attempting to correct, and the role that his various uotatio s pla i Paul s o e all theolog of justification through faith. No doubt, these theological and historical questions have merit and are vital to an overall historical and theological understanding of Galatians. However, Stanley is concerned by the lack of discussion on the level of the rhetoric of this important text. Instead, e e t i te p ete s ha e de ided to fo us thei atte tio o Paul s hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament. They ask the question, how does Paul interpret these particular Old Testament texts? Instead, Stanley wants to ask how these quotations ope ate as heto i al de i es i Paul s lette to pe suade his readers. But how do quotations within written communication work generally? Stanley offers several helpful observations here (Ibid., 12–14). According to Stanley, quotations generally serve one of two rhetorical functions, both with the objective of persuasion. Either a quotation is used as an authoritative source in order to head-off a potential objection by the reader, or it is used to illust ate a poi t that as ade i the ite s o o ds. We will take these two points in turn. In the case of the first way of using a quotation, there are at least three necessary conditions. In the first place, a quotation cannot take the place of a well-developed argument. Secondly, the audience must also accept the quoted source as authoritative. When this second 2 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent condition is fulfilled, a positive side-effect is that the bond of comradery between author and audience is strengthened. Thi dl , the eade ust eithe a ept the autho s i te p etatio of the quoted text or ot e i a positio to uestio the autho s i te p etatio . This ould be due to any number of circumstances including not have the source text with which to refer. In the case of the second way of using a quotation in written communication, the quoted text must be relevant — or be perceived to be relevant — to the subject at hand. If this condition is met, then the quotation can be very effective at illustrating a point. But again, the issue of authority is not far away, for any text that is used as an illustration within an existing argument must be an authoritative text to both the author and the reader. What we see to be at stake here is that to investigate the Old Testament quotations within the New as rhetorical devices is to ask how the author is attempting to affect change within the eade . I the o ds of “ta le , hat akes su h a situatio heto i al is the perception by [an author] that things are not as they should be, and that language can be used to i du e a audie e to i g a out a ha ge i the situatio I id., . I the ase of Gal 3:6–16, Paul perceives that his audience has ee led ast a to a othe Gospel Gal 1:6), one that teaches that all Christian males should be circumcised. Paul has it as his goal to change this understanding. In order to affect this change, he argues that salvation is by faith rather than by works of the law, basing this argument on and supplementing it with an elaborate interaction with the Old Testament. It should o , I hope, e lea just hat “ta le s s hola l uestio is. I stead of aski g ho Paul reads the Old Testament or how his theology is influenced by the Old Testament, he is concerned instead with how Paul employs the Old Testament as a part of his argumentation to persuade his readers. These theological and rhetorical questions may not intuitively appear to be disconnected, but in the rhetorical study of the New Testament use of the Old they are separated. We now turn to some of the important ways in which Stanley believes that the historical setting in which the New Testament authors wrote support his approach to stud i g Paul s use of the Old Testament. In order to support his approach, Stanley attempts to address what he believes to be nine o o assu ptio s ega di g Paul s use of the Old Testa e t I id., –61). (Space does ot allo us to e aluate “ta le s t eat e t of these nine assumptions. Instead, for the sake of illustration, his arguments will be present more-or-less as they are presented within his book. We will take them now in turn. The first assumption is that Paul s audie e a epted the Je ish “ iptu es as authoritative for Christian faith and practice. Stanley believes that this may not be universally true for all of his Gentile readers considering the fact that there was no comparative body of normative text within the Greco-Roman world. However, in light of Paul s f e ue a d o siste of Old Testa e t uotatio s a d the fa t that e e Paul s oppo e ts see to ha e suppo ted their arguments with Scripture, Stanley believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the lai that ost of Paul s audience did accept the Old Testament as authoritative. His caution, however, is that certain historical realities may not support the assumption that all of Paul s liste e s e og ized the Old Testa e t at autho itati e. 3 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent The second assumption is that Paul and his audiences had relatively free access to the Greek version Paul s hu hes e e all G eek speaki g of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint, or LXX) and could study it at their leisure. In response to this assumption, Stanley provides a helpful reality check. Historically speaking, what we call the Septuagint did not exist as a single book until the end of the first century A.D. Before this time, the Greek translations of the Old Testament were transmitted, not as a single book, but as scrolls. Additionally, these scrolls would have been prohibitively expensive for all by the elite members of society, and tensions been Jews and Gentiles on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other (evidence abounds in the book of Acts) would mean that Gentile Christians would not likely be able to walk into a Synagogue in order to study their scrolls. As far as Paul is concerned, Stanley does not believe that Paul would have owned or travelled with the many scrolls that would have made up the Old Testament. Instead, Stanley believes that Paul and his churches would have kept personal notebooks that contained key passages or favourite verses. Apart from these notebooks, Stanley believes that interaction with written copies of the Old Testament would have been extremely rare. The third assumption is that Paul s audie es egula l ead a d studied the Old Testa e t i his absence. Co side i g “ta le s espo se to the se o d assu ptio a o e, it is ot surprising that Stanley here finds problems with assuming that Paul s hu h e e s e e studying the Old Testament in their spare time. This claim is even further complicated by two major studies (Harris 1989, esp. 272, 284, 328–320; and Gamble 1995, esp. 212–214), one concluding that the literacy rate in the Greco-Roman world was no higher than 10–20 pe e t, a d the othe o ludi g that the lite a ate i Paul s p edo i a tl Ge tile churches would have been no higher than the rest of society. Furthermore, without chapters and verses, it would have been difficult for the few elite, literate members of his churches to find quoted passages if they were able to get their hands on Old Testament scrolls. All of this paints a picture that is quite different to the experience of modern Christians and probably quite different than many Christians imagine when they consider life in a first century church. The fourth assumption is that Paul s audie es e e a le to e og ize a d app e iate all of his quotations, allusions, and references to the Old Testament. Stanley wants to be very a eful he e e ause the uestio is ot hat a ode eade s e og ize as uotatio s, ut athe hat ould Paul s eade s ha e e og ized as a uotatio ? Whe the uestio is asked this a , it e o es lea that a uotatio of the Old Testament would more than likel o l e e og ized Paul s audie e if he a ks it as a uotatio i so e a su h as a i t odu to state e t. “o hat should e ake of Paul s o ti uous e gage e t ith and allusions to the Old Testament. Stanley believes that this quality of his writing says more about Paul the author than about his audience. The continuous nature of such allusions e eals the lite a apa ilities ot of the audie e, ut of Paul hi self, hose e gage e t with the Jewish Scriptures was such that his thinking and mode of expression were shaped and reshaped by the symbolic universe of the Bible and the language of specific passages “u h e p essio s a e so atu all to Paul s i d that he ight e e ha e stopped to thi k about ho ell the ight e u de stood his audie e “ta le , . O the othe hand, Stanley recognizes that certain well-educated Jews in his congregations might have e og ized a d app e iated Paul s o sta t e gage e t ith the Old Testa e t. 4 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent The fifth assumption is that Paul expected his readers to supply the context and background content for his quotations, allusions, and references to the Old Testament. He e “ta le s discussion is long and thorough, but he concludes by admitting that this is a very challenging issue, because very little is known. However, there seem to be two possibilities given the discussion to this point. First, it is possible that there was a certain basic Old Testament education that was going on within the churches. Second, Paul could have been misjudging his audience and assuming a level of understanding that did not in fact exist. Stanley believes that both of these possibilities have a level of merit to them and that the truth lies somewhere in finding the right balance between them. Stanley does not believe that his churches were memorizing large swaths of Old Testament, but he also does not believe that Paul was entirely ignorant of the competency of his audience. The sixth assumption is that Paul knew and took into account the original context of the Old Testament texts that he used. This uestio hi ges o hat s hola s a dis e a out Paul s habits of studying the Old Testament. It is rather certain that Paul used the Greek form of the Old Testament exclusively. This is even true when the Hebrew text would have made his argument stronger (eg. 1 Cor 2:16 from Isa 40:13). The question, however, arises because the e a e a i sta es he e Paul s i te p etatio o uotatio of a gi en Old Testament text does not seem to take into account the original context or meaning of the text. Furthermore, the issue is even more problematic because of the cost and scarcity of scrolls in the ancient world. These circumstances have led Stanley to conclude that Paul must have kept a personal notebook in which he could write key passages or favourite verses (see assumption two above). The seventh assumption is that Paul expected his audiences to evaluate and accept his interpretations of the Old Testament. You ight al ead k o hat to e pe t i “ta le s response here. Suffice it to say that he does not believe this assumption to be supported by the fa ts of histo . Fi st of all e ause it is u likel that Paul s eade s ould he k Paul s usage of the Old Testament against Old Testament scrolls. Secondly, Stanley finds p o le ati the fa t that so e of Paul s uotatio s a so d asti all f o thei o igi al context that it is unlikely that his readers would have accepted his quotations as logical support for his arguments (some examples given by Stanley 2004, 56 include Rom 2:24 from Isa 52:5; Rom 9:25–26 from Hos 2:23 and 1:10; Rom 10:5–8 from Deut 30:12–14; 1 Cor 14:21 from Isa 28:11–12; 2 Cor 4:13 from Ps 116:10; and Gal 3:10 from Deut 27:26). “ta le s conclusion then is that, Although it is certainly possible that Paul thought that his readings of Scripture were so obvious as to require no justification, it seems more likely that he was aware that any serious effort at justification would have been useless because of the limited biblical knowledge of his intended audience. In other words, instead of assuming that his audience knew the content of his quotations and could evaluate his interpretations accordingly, Paul seems to have crafted his quotations for an audience with relatively little knowledge of the biblical text. (Ibid. 2004, 56–57) The eighth assumption is that Paul expected his audiences to equally appreciate his biblical quotations. In one respect Stanley believes this to be true. This is because throughout history 5 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent individuals at all levels of education find the citation of authoritative sources to carry persuasive power. O the othe ha d, i di iduals ithi Paul s hu hes ould ot ha e necessaril app e iated Paul s uotatio s i ide ti al a s. The o e edu ated i di iduals (such as the Jewish males who might have enjoyed an education in the Old Testament) would ha e e og ized the autho it of Paul s itatio s a d app e iated the a o di gl . The less edu ated, i ludi g the illite ate, i di iduals ithi Paul s hu hes ould ha e still had a app e iatio fo Paul s uotatio s i the sa e a that a la pe so toda ould e impressed and perhaps persuaded by the expertise of an individual giving a lecture on astronomy or the archaeological discoveries of Mexico. The point here is, that both the educated and non-educated are influenced by the rhetoric of quotations from authoritative sources even if for different reasons. The ninth assumption is that the best way to determine the meaning of a Pauline biblical quotation is to study how Paul interpreted the biblical text. According to Stanley, the problem with this assumption is that it only takes the author (Paul) into account and does not consider the role of the audience in giving the text its meaning. Meaning, according to Stanley is not exclusively determined by the author, but is instead a product of the complex relationship between author, text, and audience. If the interpreter then is concerned with the historical ea i g of Paul s lette to the ‘o a s, the he/she should take i to a ou t the eadi g e pe ie e of Paul s ‘o a audie e a d ot o l Paul s i te p etatio of a given text. Rhetorical Interpretation in Practice It will now be clear, I hope, how a rhetorical approach to the New Testament use of the Old works. It is an historical approach that investigates the intersection between the author, the text, and the historical audience. It is not primarily interested in how the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament, but in how a particular Old Testament quote was employed by the authors of the New Testament for the purpose of persuasion. It will now be helpful to consider, though not at length, o e of “ta le s ase studies. We will consider only one Pauline quotation, namely 1 Cor 14:21 taken from Isa 28:11–12. As Stanley points out, this quotation falls within the broader context of 1 Corinthians 12–14 in which Paul addresses the Corinthian understanding and use of the Spiritual gifts. In chapter 14:1–20 (i.e., the verses leading up to our quotation in question), Paul presents an extended dis ussio of the gift of to gues ased o easo a d h potheti al situatio s. F o the amount of rhetorical energy that he expends o the p o le , e a dedu e th ee thi gs, namely that Paul finds the Corinthian use of tongues to be highly problematic, that Paul expects considerable disagreement on the part of the Corinthian church members, and that Paul did not believe that a simple appeal to his own authority would sufficiently remedy the situation (Ibid., 91). However, this reasoned approach gives way in v. 20 to a simple command based on this apostolic authority that to this point in the discussion has remained beneath the rhetoric. Ve se the i ludes the uotatio f o Isaiah, In the Law it is itte , By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not liste to e, sa s the Lo d Co : , E“V . “ta ley then asks how his audience would have received this appeal to Scripture at this point in the discussion. Considering that 6 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent this passage in Isaiah is a reference to the foreign tongues heard during the exile of Israel, it is not surprising that this quotation raises certain questions. For exa ple, ho is the I referencing? Who is the this people that is ot liste i g? Mo e i po ta tl , ho does this verse pertain to the situation in Corinth? Some of these questions would have been answered by the explanatory verses in 14:22–25. However, if we assume an informed and educated audience with access to the Greek text of Isaiah a d the k o ledge a d a ilit to he k Paul s use of Isaiah : –12, we run into some rather thorny problems. First of all, note the full content of the passage from Isaiah: Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, He ho said to the , He e is est, gi e est to the ea , A d, He e is epose, ut the ould ot liste . You ill i ediatel ote that Paul lea es out the o te t of the essage: He e is est…He e is epose. Paul s ai i te est ith uote this verse is to illustrate the impact of foreign tongues on those who hear. That is where his emphasis is rather than the content of the message, so he leaves it out. However, if our hypothetical, informed audience were to t a k do this uotatio the ight o luded that the o te t of the essage He e is est…He is epose a tuall u de i es Paul s a gu e t, e ause in the case of Isaiah 28:11–12 the message in a foreign tough is comprehensible; whereas, i Paul s a gu e t i Corinthians it is essential for the foreign tongue to be incomprehensible. Second of all, there is another problem pertaining to Paul s usage of this text, namely that in vv. 7–8, the prophet Isaiah heaps judgment up the priests and prophets that have acted o uptl . The p o le is that a e t al ele e t of Paul s a gu e t i Co i thia s is that prophecy is the superior gift. However, in the wider context of the quoted text from Isaiah, it is not those speaking in tongues that are problematic, but rather the prophets and priests. On the other hand, as I presented above through the nine assumptions, it is highly unlikely according to Stanley that such an educated and equipped audience existed in Corinth. This ea s that Paul s eade s e e u likel to ha e a of the diffi ulties ith this uotatio as our hypothetical, i fo ed audie e. I stead, Paul s sele ted a d edited uotatio ith the additio of sa s the Lo d a d his added e pla atio after the quote would have had a strong rhetorical effect. The audience would have understood themselves to be the ones speaking in strange tongues and outsiders to not understand or benefit from a foreign language. This example should help illustrate the distinct interests of the rhetorical approach. Stanley is far less interested in how Paul interprets Isaiah and more interested in how he chooses to use this quote to advance his argument regarding tongues within the church at Corinth. Such an approach may seem foreign to many evangelicals, but it is important to see the many benefits that arise from the questions that the rhetorical approach ask of the biblical text as well as its effort to base its understanding of the New Testament upon strong historical ground. However, before we conclude, it will be helpful to anticipate our next lecture by asking some questions of this approach in response. 7 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent Points for Further Discussion I hope that the strengths of a study su h as “ta le s ill e self-evident. As students of the Bible, we are always benefited by understanding more fully the historical context of the authors and early readers of the Scriptures. Moreover, there are undoubtedly helpful insights gained regarding the use of the Old Testament within the New that comes as a result of establishing one s u de sta di g o su h histo i al g ou ds. Ho e e , “ta le s app oa h does not answer many of the questions that most — no doubt non-academic by and large — Christians ask of the New Testament. Most Christians are not particularly interested in the lite a ates of the ‘o a o ld o eathe Paul s audie e as ell e sed i the Jewish Scriptures; rather they want to know how a given New Testament text pertains to their lives. In fact all of the nine assumptions that are commonly made of the original New Testament audiences, and which Stanley addresses and hopes to correct, find different answers when directed at modern readers of the Bible. For example, modern readers do have compete Bibles. We also have concordances, and Bible softwares, and the internet. We can investigate Paul s i te p etatio of the Old Testa e t; i fa t the ay that the New Testament is often preached demonstrates that this is precisely what we are supposed to do. So what should the modern reader of the New Testament do? Although our next topic in this class (Theological Interpretation of Scripture) is not primarily concerned with answering this question, it does find a way, on theological grounds, to give a greater resonance between the Testaments and the theological needs of the church. It does so by understanding the Bible as a single canon that speaks with a single authoritative voice produced through the providence of a single Trinitarian God, who is the God of the Old and New Testaments. This alternative approach, of course, does not answer all of the questions and problems that we have as Bible students, but it does address a major concern that eade s a ha e. O e a sa , it s all ell a d good to k o that Paul s audie e e e ot e pe ts i the Old Testa e t a d that ooks e e too e pe si e to go a d look up Paul s quotations to verify his usage of a given text, but I have the Old Testament (in fact I have a Bible software that means that I can look up anything that I want). “hould t I the stud i depth Paul s usage of the Old Testa e t a d allo u de sta di g of the Ne Testa e t to be shaped by the Old Testa e t a d i e e sa? This, I elie e, is a se ious uestio that deserves serious consideration. There is no doubt that the rhetorical study of the New Testament authors s use of the Old Testa e t is a o th e dea ou , ut I elie e that the closing of the biblical canon compels the Christian reader to read the entire Bible in the light of oth the e ti e a o a d Ch ist s e elatio th ough his i a atio . 8 Copyright Kings Evangelical Divinity School, Kent WORKS CITED Austin, J. L. 1955. How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge: Harvard). Gamble, Harry Y. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale). Harris, William. 1989. Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard). “ta le , Ch istophe D. . The ‘heto i of Quotatio s: A Essa o Method, i Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigation and Proposals (ed. by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Sheffield: Sheffield): 44–58. Stanley, Christopher D. 2004. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T&T Clark). Stamps, De is L. . The Use of the Old Testa e t i the Ne Testa e t as a ‘heto i al Device: A Methodological Proposal, i Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. by Stanley E. Porter; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006): 9–37. 9