Use-Of OT-in NT

THE USE OF
© 1972, Duke University Press

THE OLD TESTAMENT L.C.C.card no. 70-185463
I.S.B.N. 0-8223-0288-8
IN THE NEW AND

OTHER ESSAYS
STUDIES IN HONOR OF
WILLIAM FRANKLIN STINESPRING
Edited· by
JAMES M. EFIRD
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Composition by Maurice Jacobs, Inc.

DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Durham, N. C. 1!l72
THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
IN THE NEW
D. MOODY SMITH, JR.
Professor William F. Stinespring's career has been an expression

of his commitment both to biblical scholarship and to the Christian
faith. It has been his steady conviction that the study of the Old
Testament and of Semitic languages is directly important for, and
ultimately indispensable to, the right understanding of the New
Testament and hence of Christianity. Therefore, the question of
the Old Testament in the New goes to the heart of Professor
Stinespring's own interests and concerns. This article, in tribute
to him, is an attempt to reopen and review that important question
in the light of recent research. Our purpose cannot be to bring
forth in detail or on a large scale the results of recent scholarly
effort. Concentrating primarily upon explicit usage or citation,
we shaiI attempt to sketch the main lines of ~evelopment since the
publication of Tasker's general book on this subject in 1946, and
especially since its revision in 1954. 1
The phrase "the Old Testament in the New" is, of course, an
anachronism on two counts. First, and most importantly, the con-
cept of an "Old Testament" depends upon the existence of a "New
1. R. V. G. Tasker, The Old Testament in the New, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1954). Hopefully this book will also serve as a guide to recent literature in
this field. Other bibliographical data may be found in the preface to Krister Stendahl's
The School oj St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (1954; reprinted, Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1968) pp. i-xiv. Note also the article by Gottlieb Schrenk, "'¥pacpw ... ,"
Theological Dictionary oj the New Testament, trans. G. W. Bromiley and ed. Gerhard
Kittel (Grand Rapids, 1964-69), 1, 742 fr. Principal items of the earlier literature are
cited by L. Venard, "Citations de l'Ancien Testament dans Ie Nouveau Testament,"
Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplement, ed. L. Pirot (Paris: Librarie Letouzey, 1934), 2,
23-51, esp. 50-51.
Only after the completion of my article was I able to see C. K. Barrett's essay,
"The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New," in The Cambridge History oj
the Bible, vol. I, From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970), pp.377-41 i. Important also is the even more recent article by Merrill P.
Miller, "Targum, Midrash and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,"
Journalfor the Study of Judaism, 2 (1971),29-82, containing extensive bibliographical
information. Note also P. Nickels, Targum and the New Testament: A Bibliography to-
gether with a New Testament Index (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967).
3
4 D. MOODY SMITH, JR.. THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW 5
Testament." Therefore, we should not expect any reference to the body of canonical Scriptures whose existence, if not its exact
Hebrew Scriptures as Old Testament until the formation of the delimitation, was scarcely in doubt. Yet the question of the exact
New Testament canon was well under way.2 Nevertheless, Paul ~elimitation of the Old Testament in the New Testament period
already speaks of the reading of the Old Covenant (II Cor. 3:14), IS real and should not simply be bypassed. Because of the pre-
by which he certainly means part, if not all, of the Scriptures, doz:ninance of septuagintal quotations, as opposed to quotations
and thus prepares the way for the adoption of the term Old Testa- which refle~t the Hebrew in distinction from the Septuagint, it
ment. In the second place, the canon of the Old Testament was not has been wIdely assumed that the Septuagint was the Bible of the
officially closed on the Jewish side at the time many New Testa- primitive church. This is by no means .an erroneous assumption.
ment books were being written; thus it is incorrect to imply that On the other hand, the corollary that the Christian church adopted
it was completely fixed at the time of Christian origins. Moreover, an Alexandrian canon consisting of the books of the Hebrew Old
some fluidity in Christian usage continued well past the official Testament finally accepted at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) plus the Apoc-
establishment of the Jewish canon in A.D. 90 or 100. Nevertheless, rypha (included in one form or another in extant Septuagint
the authority of the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; manuscripts) has recently been opposed by A. C. Sundberg. 4
Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Rom. 3:21) or the Scriptures (plural, Sundberg argues that such a Hellenistic-Jewish canon never
Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:24; Acts 17:2; or sing., Acts 8:32; John 20:9; existed at all. The Christian canon, based upon pre-Jamnian
Rom. 4:3) had long been acknowledged within Judaism when Jewish usage, consists of the Law, the Prophets and a more broadly
Christianity appeared upon the scene. Such fluidity as there was based collection of Hagiographa than was finally admitted by the
pertained only to the Hagiographa, but even there usage had rabbis at J amnia. But this canon does not represent an earlier,
established the authority of a number of books. Luke refers to the official Alexandrian canon, as opposed to a narrower Palestinian
Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44), and New Testa- ~ne. ~ather, the septuagintal canon reflects a pre-Jamnian Jewish
ment usage generally confirms the existence of a threefold canon. SItuatIon fully as common to Palestine as to the Hellenistic environ-
The prologue to the wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, almost two cen- ment of Alexandria. This earlier period in Palestine is reflected
turies older than any New Testament book, confirms the general also in the Qumran scrolls, where canonical and extracanonical
use of a threefold canon in early Christian times as does the usage materials existed together with little indication that the Qumraners
of Philo, who quotes from the Law, Prophets and Writings, and respected the bounds of canonicity as they were to be later defined.
Josephus (cf. Against Apion 1:8), whose use of apocryphal material Moreover, the usage of the New Testament, as reflected in Nestle's
may be significant. 3 marginal notes, shows that these earliest Christian writers did not
THE OLD TESTAMENT AT THE BEGINNING

. 4. ~he Old Testamt;nt oJ. the Early Church, Harvard Theological Studies, no. 20 (Cam-
bridge. Harvard University Press, 1964). Sundberg discusses the development of the
OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA Alexandrian canon hypothesis on pp. 7-24 and its general acceptance on pp. 25-40.
A reser~ed proponent of the Alexandrian canon hypothesis ~ R. H. Pfeiffer; see his
The problem oj the Old Testament canon Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 65-70, and his article "Canon of the Old Testa-
ment," IDB, 1 :510 f. On the other hand, no less an authority than H. E. Ryle, The
The preceding observations are sufficient to justify speaking of Cano~ of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1914), rejected the Alex-
the Old Testament in relation to the New. The term refers to a andrian canon hypothesis quite emphatically (pp. 156, 180).
Sun~berg, "Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon," Studia
2. Perhaps the earliest reference to the Hebrew scriptures as "Old Testament" is Evangellca (Oxfor? Congress, 1965), vol. 4, which is Texte und Untersuchungen, ed.
to be found in Melito of Sardis (ca. A.D. 180), who sets forth a list of books T1/S 'lI'aXaLaS ~. L .. Cross (Berlm, 1968), .102:452-61, has recently argued that the frequent iden-
l)La8~K7Js. cr. W. G. Kfunmel Introduction to the New Testament, founded by Paul Feine tIfication of "canon" and "scripture" is misleading since in the New Testament
and Johannes Behm and trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr., 14th ed. rev. (Nashville.: Abingdon, 'Ypa¢~ is no~ the equival~nt of "canon." Rather, all'the instances of 'Ypa¢~ which
1966), p. 344. are usually Cited as carrymg the meaning of "canon" can be shown to carry instead
3. cr. R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper and the meanings of::specific writing" or "book." The plural 'Ypa¢al, moreover,refers
Brothers, 1941), pp. 67 f. to the sacred writings taken together, but not necessarily to the canon.
6 D. MOODY SMITH, JR. THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW 7
confine themselves to the Jamnian canon. 5 Earliest Old Testament less, the apparent absence of apocryphal citations as such in
canonical lists of the church fathers show considerable variation, the New Testament does not necessarily mean that the New Testa-
an unlikely phenomenon if there had been a Hellenist~~-Jewish ment writers did not acknowledge the apocryphal books as canoni-
Alexandrian canon of recognized status. The probab1lity that cal. In point of fact; a number of Old Testament books are not
there never was such a canon is further stren(5thened by the unlike- cited as scripture in the New Testament, especially those from the
lihood of such a canon's being established independently of Pales- Hagiographa, which was precisely the part of the canon still in a
tinian Judaism. . fluid state during the early Christian period. 9 The situation with
While Sundberg's case for a certain fluidity in the HaglOgra~ha respect to those books is no different from that of the Apocrypha.
of Palestine as well as Alexa;ndria seems to be well made, the 1m- There are similarities of language and allusions in the New Testa-
pression he leaves concerning the early. Christia~ use o! .extra; ment, but no explicit quotations as scripture. If citation as scripture
canonical (by Jamnian standards) books 1S not ent1rely fehc1touS. in the New Testament were made the touchstone of canonicity of
Robert A. Kraft has raised some pertinent issues about Sundberg's the Old, the latter would be significantly smaller. 10 Still, the only
procedures. He questions "his appeal to the passages from 'non- certain indication that a book was regarded as canonical is its
canonical' Jewish literature listed in the margins of Nestle's 22nd citation as scripture. (Although one will scarcely doubt that
edition of the New Testament (!) as evidence for 'the canon' re- I Samuel and II Kings, neither of which is cited explicitly as
ceived by 'the church' from Judaism." Moreover, he asks: "Do .scripture, were regarded by the early Christians as a part of their
alleged parallels in wording and thought indicate act~al use? Does Bible.)
actual use indicate canonical status ... ? Does canomcal status for . The only safe generalization, then, would go something like this:
Jude necessarily indicate the same for Paul, or for the whole of the Law, the Prophets and a number of the Writings-the exact
early Christianity?" 7 It seems to be a fac~ that although. a few number being a. matter of dispute-were regarded as canonical by
passages from outside the Hebrew or Jamman canon are c1ted as the Christians (and Jews) of the New Testament period, but from
scripture in the New Testament, none of these is from the Apoc-
rypha. The New Testament gives the impression that the Old
Testament with Special Reference to the Qumran Sect"). Josephus, Philo, tile New
Testament acknowledged by its writers was virtually the same as Testament, IV Ezra, and especially Qumran are cited in support of tilis contention.
8
that adopted by Judaism in the early years of our era. Neverthe- Eybers maintains that the Septuagint can scarcely be adduced as evidence of a broader
canon in Hellenistic Judaism, since the manuscripts and lists show its contents to have
been very 'uncertain (pp. 53, 59). Moreover, almost all tile important evidence for the
5. The precise role and importance of Jamnia is a matter of dispute. Sund?~g, Septuagint comes from Christian sources (pp. 61 f.). Nevertheless, Eybers must admit
The Old Testament oj the Early Church, pp. 113 ff., takes the more-or-less orthod~x cntlc~1 tilat several documents such as Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,
view that the council meeting there ca. A.D. 90 set the bounds of the Hag~os:rap~a, Enoch, and Sirach may have been regarded as canonical, or at least authoritative, at
confirming some books (e. g., Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs) and ehmmatmg Qumran.
Sirach and those books known to have been of recent origin. O~ the othe~ .hand, While his argument for the prevalence of the Palestinian canon in Greek-speaking
Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?" The ]ourn.al ~j Bible al~d RelzglOn, 32 Judaism is impressive, Eybers never fully explains why the Christian church, which
(1964),125-32, points out that the traditional view ofJamma IS. largely mference an? did not widely use the Apocrypha in tile New Testament, would have introduced it
conjecture. While this may be so, "Jamnia" apparently does pomt to an actual stabI- into its Old Testament unless it were in use by Hellenistic Jews already.
lization of the canon which took place at the end of the first century o~ shortly ~here 9. According to the Nestle index locorum, Proverbs is cited only four times as Scripture,
after. The second-century proscription of the Septuagint and the JeWISh ~doptlon of Job once, and Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs not at all. Psalms on the other hand is
tile Greek version of Aquila (whose limitations correspond to the Jamman canon) cited fifty-five times, or more than any other book in the Old Testament. Thus the
would seem to indic;1te that such a stabilization had taken place. casual reference in Luke 24:44 to "tile Law of Moses, tile Prophets, and the Psalms"
6 The Old Testament oj the Early Church, pp. 53ff., 81-103. seems to be very close to an accurate description of the canon of the New Testament
7: Review of Sundberg, The Old Testament oj the Ear? Ch~rch, in]BL, 85 (1 ?66), ~59. writers. Of course, Kraft's point (above) that the limits of the canon may have differed
8. In a 1965 Ph.D. dissertation written under the dIrection of Profe: sor ~tmespn~g, for individual New Testament writers is well taken.
I. H. Eybers has argued forcefully that the books regarded as canomcal m ~alestme 10. By my count about seventeen Old Testament books are not explicitly cited as
in 100 or even 150 B.C. were virtually the same as'those approved at Jamma at the Scripture in the New Testament, altilough only four are not represented at least once
tile end of the first Christian century ("Historical Evidence on tile Canon of the Old in bold-face type in tile Nestle text (Rutil, Ezra, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs).
THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW 9
D. MOODY SMITH, JR.
8
Masoretic t~xt. This does not, of course, mean that the quotation
among those writings the New Testament authors tended to quote could· have Just as well been made from the Hebrew for no two
mostly from the Pentateuch, certain of the Prophets, especially translators are likely to render the same sentence in' exactly the
Isaiah, and the Psalms. Moreover, they afford no sure evidence same way. Moreover, there are numerous instances in which a
for the canonicity of the books of the Apocrypha. New Testament writer obviously follows the Septuagint in distinc-
ti?n.from the Hebrew. 14 The dictum that the Septuagint was the
Principal texts and versions BIble of the early Christian community and of the New Testament
writers is not false. To repeat this, however, does not solve every
That the Hebrew text existed in a form not too different from ~roble.m~ for the state of the septuagintal text in early Christian
the Masoretic text during the New Testament era has now been t~mes IS Itself a far-reaching, highly complex, and important ques-
shown by the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls. Yet the scrolls also t1On. Moreover, it is quite clear that not only the Septuagint, but
attest the existence of near prototypes of the Samaritan Pentateuch also the Hebrew text and the Targums have had some influence
and the Septuagint. B. J. Roberts observes that the Qumraners upon the writings of the New Testament.
were little disturbed by the existence of competing textual tradi- The ques~on of the nature of the Greek translation we know as
tions; in fact, they made the most of them. 11 More conservative the SeptuagInt has been much debated in the last few decades.
treatment of the textual tradition is attested by the manuscript Perhaps the chief in:petus for .this debate has been the theory of
finds at Wadi Murabba'at. These manuscripts belong to the period Paul Kahle, accordmg to whIch the Septuagint arose out of a
of the Bar Cocheba Revolt (A.D. 132-135), and the association of welter ~f Greek ~arg~ms to the various parts of the Old Testa-
the eminent Rabbi Akiba with that uprising would lead us to ex- ment. l In Kahle s VIew, the Letter of Aristeas was intended to
pect a closer conformity with the emerging textual "orthodoxy." propagandize for a standard Jewish translation of the Torah
Roberts believes that the text-form of the Torah was fairly well (Pentateuch) into Greek at about the end of the first century B C
established, with some variation, in pre-Christian times, but that The claim~ which it makes for the Pentateuch were later extend~d
there were major divergences in other parts of the Old Testament. 12 to. the entIre Gr~ek translation and the nam~ derived from it ap-
But no unified textual tradition at the beginning of the Christian plIed to the entl~e body of scriptures by Christians. In point of
era can be posited as the beginning point for work upon the prob- fact,. t~e Septuagmt O!d Testa~ent is a creation of second-century
lem of the Old Testament in the New. The divergences of the ChrIstIans out of varIOUS JeWlsh translations of portions of the
Septuagint from the Masoretic text already invite such a conclusion. OldT~sta~ent, none of which had previously attained undisputed
The Septuagint. The Septuagint is, of course, the. immediate authOrItatIve status, except perhaps the pentateuchal translation
source for most of the Old Testament quotations in the New. promoted by Aristeas. Evidence for this view is adduced from a
According to R. H. Pfeiffer, eighty percent of the Old Testament number of .s~urces and considerations: the existence of various
13
quotations in the New are drawn from the Septuagint. This textual tradlt10ns of the Septuagint designated by Jerome (Hesy-
figure, presumably based upon agreement or near agreement with 14. For a.very co~venient and useful assembly of the New Testament, se tua intal
some known septuagintal text-form, may be a bit high, but it is and Masoretlc materIals see W. !>ittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Die altte;:ame!liche~
probably not misleading. In many or even most of these instances ~ara~ele~ des Neuen Testaments 1m Wortlaut der Urtexte und der Septuaginta (Gottingen·
. an en oeck & .Rup~echt" 1903). C. H. Toy's older work, Quotations in the New Testa:
there is little or no disagreement between the Septuagint and· the r;nt T(New York. Scrrbner s, 1884) gives English translations as well as the original
ew estament, Hebrew, and septuagintal texts.
11. "Text: Old Testament," IDB, 4, 583; cf. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 15. See The CaiTO Geniza, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academ 1941
(Lon.don: Oxford Uni~~rsity Pre.ss, 1947), pp. 132-79, esp. 157 f., 165, 174 fr:kahle
esp. pp. 183 fr. pu~hshed a second edmon of thIS book a decade later (Oxford: Blackwell 1959) .
12. Roberts, 4: 583. On the text of the Old Testament compare his earlier work,
The Old Testament Text and Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951). WhICh see esp. pp. 235 fr. . ' , m
13. Pfeiffer, 1: 511.
D. MOODY SMITH, JR.
10
ment quotations, most do not differ materially from the Septua-
chius, Lucian, and Origen); the likelihood that earlier translation •
gmt, 21
and there are a number of possible explanations for those
work underlies the three second-century Greek versions of Aquila, that do: quotation from memory, influence of Ma~oretic or other
Theodotion, and Symmachus (not to mention the anonymous Hebrew traditions or of the Aramaic Targums. But such reserva-
translations cited in Origen's Hexapla); and the numerous New tions regarding Kahle's denial of the existence of a non-Christian
Testament quotations which do not correspond to· the text of the S~ptuagin~ do ??~ necessarily rule out other aspects of his hypoth-
Septuagint. 16 Kahle also maintains that in dealing with a trans- eSlS. In hls CrItlclsm of the predominant theory identified with
lation it is fallacious to assume a single Urtext as one does when Paul de Lagarde, Kahle rightly objects to the assumption that a
dealing with an original text. It is rather prima facie possible that translated text must, like an original text, have a single Urtext or
translations of such a work as the Old Testament would spring up autographon. Independent translations could arise and apparently
quite independently. Kahle cites the growth of the Targums and did. 22 Certainly it is reasonable to suppose that' traces of variant
of the Latin and Syriac versions of the Bible as evidence of his con- readings arising from such processes may be found in the New
tention that in the case of translations, standardization of the text Testament.
follows upon a period of freedom and even confusion in its trans- The implications of the present state of Septuagint studies for
mission. 17 ~ew Testament exegesis generally are thus difficult to assess. Even
Although Kahle's position seems plausible, the prevailing tide if Kahle's thesis is rejected, a certain fluidity in the Greek text of
of contemporary scholarship is against it. 18 Major objections are the Old Testament, if not distinct traditions of translation remains
raised on several counts. First, the recently discovered Greek Old a certainty. ~c~ordingly, variations in New Testament q~otations
Testament fragments from Qumran and elsewhere seem to confirm f~om t~e ~rmclpal Septuagint manuscripts may in any instance
the existence of a standardized Greek text in the pre-Christian SImply mdlcate reliance upon a variant Greek translation. Need-
period, although Kahle has not conceded this. 19 Secondly, evidence less to say, each such instance is to be judged on its own merits.
is lacking for the process of standardization in the second-century
Christian church. Moreover, the second-century B.C. prologue to . The. T~rgums.
While the importance of the Septuagint for the
the Wisdom of Sirach speaks of the translation of the threefold mvestlgatlO~ of the use of the Old Testament in the New has long
canon in such a way as to imply something more than a collection been recogmzed, the question of the bearing of the Aramaic Tar-
of more or less unofficial Targums, and there is some doubt that ~ms upon t~s problem is still in relatively early stages of expI ora-
the evidence of Philo and Josephus can be disposed of in such a non; There lS, first of all, the matter of which Targums are most
way as to accommodate Kahle's theory.20 As for the New Testa- usef~l in New Testament study. (Of course, the Targums of the
HaglOgrapha are generally rather late.) Gustaf Hermann Dalman
16. Note especially Alexander Sperber, "New Testament and Septuagint," ]BL, 59
(1940), 193-293; cf. his earlier .article "The New Testament and the Septuagint," in
threw his prestige behind. the value of the official Pentateuchal
the Hebrew quarterly Tarbi;;, 6 (1934), 1-29 (non vid.). Targum of Onkelos and the Prophetic Targum of Jonathan, which
17. Cairo Geni;;a, 1st ed., p. 175.
18. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions, pp. 111-15; Sidney Jellicoe, The 21. Sp~rber, "New Testament anll Septuagint," p. 204, cites Turpie The Old
Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 59-63, catalogues Testament In ~he "lew (Lo.ndon, 1868) to the effect that the New Testament de~arts from
older and more recent opposition to Kahle (H. M. Orlinsky, Peter Walters (Katz), (~~4~e)Ptu~gmt m 185 mstances, but he also cites Grinfield, Apology for the Septuagint
D. Barthelemy, F. L. Cross, and H. H. Rowley). . . . ., . ,w 0 finds only about fifty quotations that differ materially from the Septu-
19. F. L. Cross, "The History of the Biblical Text m the Light of Discoveries m agmt.
the Judean Desert," Harvard Theological Review, 57 (1964), 281-99, esp. 281-84. Cf. p, Z22., S~ul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Kahle, The Cairo Geni;;a, 2nd ed., pp. 246 f. a estlne In the II-IV c,enturies C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942),
20. Cairo Geni;;a; 1st ed., pp. 141 ff., 150 ff.; 2nd ed., 229 ff., 247 ff. Cf. Peter Katz, pp. 4: ~., addu~es eVidence of the use of Greek translation(s) of the Scriptures b
Philo's Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and its Place Palestlman rabbIS. W. D. Davies, "Law in First-Century Judaism" IDB 3' 90 r £ y
in the Textual History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), to ~ state~ent on translating the law by Rabban Simeon Gamaiiel, who ~ r:po~t:
who believes the variations in Philo's Old Testament texts have been introduced from to ave said that such a translation could be written only in Greek.
later translations.
12 D. MOODY SMITH, JR.
he regarded as representative of the early Targumic tradition of
Palestine despite the fact that he was well aware of their immediate use of the Old Testament in the New. They afford a rich resource
Babyloni~n provenance. More recent re~earch, especial~y. that of of material relating to the language, conceptuality, and religion of
Paul Kahle, has emphasized the scholastic and standardIzmg ten- the Judaism of New Testament times. With the publication of
dencies at work in Onkelos especially, and has turned to the Pales- critical texts of Onkelos and Jonathan, 26 as well as the forthcoming
tinian Targum as a better representative of the speech and thought Madrid edition of the Palestinian Targum, elicited by the dis-
of first-century Palestine. 23 With the further supp~r~ afforded by covery of its complete text in the Neofiti Codex,27 the Targums
the discovery of the Neofiti Codex of the Paiestiman Targum, are now more than ever before becoming accessible for New Testa-
ment and cognate research.
Kahle's views have in this case won wide acceptance. The recent
monograph of Martin S. McNamara seeks to vindicate the ear.ly
date of the Palestinian Targum and its importance for early Chns- The use of the Old Testament £n late Judaz'sm
tianity by examining certain texts and motifs of the New Testament
against that background. 24 .. , The consideration of the questions of the canon, text, and ver-
I am unable to offer the critical evaluatlOn WhiCh McNamara s sions of the Old Testament in the first Christian century provides
significant work deserves. Obviously, however, he has shown that t~e necessary framework for any discussion of the use of the Scrip-
there are affinities of various sorts between the New Testament tures of Judaism in the books of the New Testament. Yet it does
and the Palestinian Targum, and thus he has reason to think that not supply the key to understanding the motives, methods, and
he has vindicated the statement of Kahle which he quotes toward purposes that govern their use. Such a key is perhaps to be found
the beginning and end of his work: in the investigation of the use of the Old Testament in contem-
"We can learn many more details from them [the PT texts] porary Judaism. Yet to gain access to such a key is no simple task.
than from the material collected by Billerbeck and Bonsirven. For one thing, it is perhaps easier to ascertain the typical uses of
... In the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch we have in the Old Testament in first-century Christianity than in first-
the main material coming down from pre-Christian times century Judaism. For example, the New Testament affords a fairly
which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand comprehensive picture of the use of the Old Testament in the
the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of C:hristianity. theology and practice of the early church. On 1:fie other hand, the
And we possess this material in a language of .which can v:e. rabbinic literature is organized around interests and perspectives
of post-Jamnian Judaism, which was predominantly Pharisaic.
say that it was similar to that spoken by the earhest Christians.
It is material, the importance of which can scarcely be exag- While Philo utilizes. exegetical methods and perhaps traditions
gerated.,,25 common also to the rabbis, he is apparently an original if not an
entirely isolated figure. Josephus' interests in Old Testament texts
Needless to say, the value of the Targums for New Testament are primarily those of a histbrian, albeit a first-century historian
investigation is not limited to what light they may shed upon the with apologetic motivation. The Qumran literature probably
23. Cairo GeniZ:;a, 1st ed., pp. 117 fT.; 2nd ed., 191 fT. Nevertheless, d~cussion con- furnishes the most fruitful parallels to the New Testament and
tinues among the experts as to the antiquity of this Targum. See the articles by ~al
colm C. Doubles, "Toward the Publication of the Extant -::ex:s of the P~es~ml~n 26. Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1959-62). See
Targum(s)," Vetus Testamentum, 15 (1965), 16-26, and "Indlca~!ons of Antl.qUlty m also J. W. Etheridge, trans., The Targums oj Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uz:;z:;iel on the
the Orthography and Morphology of the Fragm.ent :argum, In MemOriam ~aul Pentateuch with the Fragments oj the Jerusalem Targumfrom the Chaldee, 2 vols. in 1 (1862,
Kahle ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer (Berlm: Topelmann, 1968), pp. :9.89. 1865; reprint ed., New York: KTAV PubliShing House, 1971).
24: The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Analecta BlblIca, 27. A.. D. Macho, ed. Neophyti 7: TargumPalestinense, Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana,
no. 27 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), pp. 33 fT. Textos y Estudios, nos. 7 fT. (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Ciendficas,
25. Ibid., pp. 34, 253; The Cairo Geniz:;a, 2nd ed., p. 208. 1968-). The first two volumes .have appeared, but I was able to see them only after
the completion of this article.
early Christian usage. 28 True, the Essenes or Qumraners do not some important differences, inasmuch as the appropriation of the
represent a main line of Jewish piety, but a sect. Yet precisely Old Testament in the New presupposes Jesus Christ as its central
their sectarian character affords an analogy with earliest Chris- organizing point. These similarities and differences have been
tianity, which was also, if in a somewhat different way, a sect studied with respect to various documents of early Christianity
of Judaism. and late Judaism. 30 Sweeping generalizations regarding the use of
In addition to these frequently cited representatives of first- the Old Testament in, let us say, the rabbis and the New Testa-
century Judaism, a consideration of the use of the Old Testament ment are probably not very helpful, and, while unnecessary for
in the so-called Apocrypha, or even the use or reappropriation of the scholar, may prove misleading to the novice. More profitable
the earlier books or traditions of the Old Testament in later books are comparisons of specific authors or documents and the use of
or recensions, might be relevant and worthwhile. It is arguable, contemporary and cognate materials, for instance, from Philo or
however, that such instances are qualitatively different from those Qumran, to illuminate specific instances of the use of the Old
previously mentioned, since many of the apocryphal books, as well Testament in the New. With this caveat in mind and with appro-
as the later Old Testament books, were very likely written before priate disclaimers to completeness, it may nevertheless be useful to
the Old Testament canon was closed. Of course, a number of the record a few observations about the use of the Old Testament in
writings of the New Testament, Qumran, and Philo were com- Judaism.
posed before the Old Testament canon (particularly the contents The use of the Old Testament in rabbinic materials in com-
of the Hagiographa) was firmly fixed, so any such distinction is parison to its use by Paul has been extensively treated by Joseph
less than absolute. Nonetheless, the Apocrypha differs from the Bonsirven, whose work is useful for obtaining a grasp of rabbinic
New Testament, Philo, the rabbinic sources, and Qumran, not exegesis generally.31 Bonsirven is able to show many affinities be-
only in being for the most part somewhat earlier, but also in lacking tween Paul and the rabbis, especially in exegetical method and
any clear differentia from the later Old Testament books themselves technique, introductory formulas, and the like. What is true for
-witness their inclusion in the Septuagint. 29 The apocryphal Paul, moreover, holds good for much of the remainder of the New
writers are not so clearly concerned with coming to terms with or Testament. With good reason Geza Vermes S-ees in the New Testa-
expounding a body of accepted scripture. Neither do they feel the ment material for the reconstruction of methods and traditions of
need to reinterpret the scriptures in the light of a new historical Jewish exegesis in the first century of our era. 32 Moreover, the rela-
situation (Qumran, the New Testament) or a new perspective or tionships in exegetical method among the documents of this period
insight (Philo). Therefore, the relative scarcity of explicit Old are complex. For example, there are remarkable affinities not only
Testament citations, in comparison to numerous references and between the rabbis and the New Testament, but also between the
allusions, is not surprising.
The most important witnesses to the use of the Old Testament .30. See, for example, the recent monographs of S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of
Plulo pnd l!ebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus
in Jewish religious literature contemporary with the New Testa- and the EpIstle to the Hebrews, Basel Studies of Theology, no. 1 (Zurich: EVZ Verlag,
ment (i. e. the rabbis, Philo, and Qumran) all manifest some simi- !965) and Peder Borgen, Bread From Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept oj Manna
In the Gospel oj John and the Writings of Philo, Supplements to Novum Testamentum
larities to the New Testament. Needless to say, they also display no. 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965). J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and
Acts (~en: van Gorc~, 1954), has provided an introduction to the use of Jewish
28. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran materIals for understandmg Old Testament exegesis in the narrative books of the
Literature and in the New Testament," NTS, 7 (1961),297 f. Ne~ Test~ment. See also B. M. Metzger, "The.Formulas Introducing· Quotations of
29. Cf. J. L. Zink, "The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocrypha" (Ph.D. SCrIpture m the New Testament and the Mishnah," JBL, 70 (1951),297-307.
diss., Duke University, 1963). In an otherwise careful study Zink pays too little atten- 31. Exegese Rabbinique et Exegese Paulinienne, Bibliotheque de Theologie historique
tion to the implications of the obvious but important fact that the apocryphal writers (Paris, Beauchesne, 1938).
could not know that they were writing "apocryphal" rather than "Old Testament" ~2. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, Studia Post-Biblica, vol. 4
books. (Lelden: Brill, 1961), p. 8.
D. MOODY SMITH, JR.
16
33 reason for considering him as a special instance. Since the precise
rabbinic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since the hallmarks
of rabbinic exegesis have been set forth in great detail by Bon- delineation of Philo's whole orientation and purpose has been a
sirven 34 and summarized by others, 35 there is no need to rehearse matter of dispute, unanimity over his exegetical method ought
them here. Suffice it to say that despite many points of contact, not to be expected. Be that as it may, there is little inclination to
one receives rather divergent impressions of the Old Testament deny to Philo the title of the leading exponent of allegorical exe-
from Paul and the rabbis. 36 The disparity between them doubtless gesis in first-century Judaism. His methods or those of his school
has something to do with Paul's Christocentrism and thece~ were later taken up by Christian exegetes and became common
trality of the Torah in the rabbis. For Paul the Old Testament IS currency in the church for centuries. The kind of allegorical exe-
no longer primarily law, in the sense .of c?mm.andmen~, although gesis we find in Philo is not utterly without representation in the
it certainly was and remains, that~ It IS pnmanl~ promise a~d the New Testament (see Gal. 4:21-31), and there are weighty reasons
prefiguration of the salvation event ?~ the co~~ng of Chnst. Its for seeing. a certain positive relation between his biblical exegesis
prophetic and eschatological potentiahtles are utlhzed to the fullest. and what we find in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet the total im-
While Paul can and does use the Old Testament commandments pression conveyed by Philo's exegetical procedure is very different
in a prescriptive sense (e. g. Rom. 12:20; d. also I Cor. 9:9 where from that obtained from the New Testament, and indeed from the
the Old Testament is used in precisely this way, even though Paul main line of rabbinic exegesis. While the New Testament and the
insists it now applies to Christians), this is not the style most char- rabbis may differ in emphasizing the prophetic and legal aspects
acteristic of him (d. Rom. 10:6 ff., where Paul takes a word about of the scriptures respectively, they lack the Philonic penchant for
the law from Deut. 30:12 ff. and applies it to Christ). For the rab- using the facts, figures, words, and whole passages of scripture as
bis, on the other hand, the Old Testament is above all God's c~m ciphers or symbols designating some less obvious reality to be
mandments' their energies are tirelessly devoted to the exegesIs of grasped by either mystical or philosophical insight. Both Paul and
the comma~dments for prescriptive application to specific situa- the rabbis appear confident that the scriptures have some rather
tions. Perhaps it is not misleading to say that while the rabbis tend clear and direct message, while for Philo their meaning is of a
to read the Old Testament as law,37 Paul (and with him the other more recondite character and requires a unique insight or inspi-
New Testament writers) reads the Old Testament as prophecy ration as the prerequisite of interpretation. Still, in just this fact
and even transforms specific commandments and narrations into there is a point of contact between Philo and the New Testament.
prophetic words (e. g. I Cor. 9:9 and 10:1 ff., which althou~h For both, a proper perspective is required before the scriptures
taken in something like their original sense are thought to pomt can be understood. In the New Testament, of course, this perspec-
forward to the Christian community). tive is given in the central, saving event. In Philo it is less concrete,
Possibly Philo's use of the Old Testament ought to be stu~ied as but nonetheless real. Whoever does not read the Old Testament
an instance of highly creative Hellenistic rabbinic exegesIs. Y~t by t~e light of that mystical and divine revelation which Philo
because Philo seems so distinctive in comparison to the rabbiS associates with M,,(os, VOllS, or r:pws will not find its more important
whom we know through the Mishnah and Talmud there is good meaning. Like the rabbinic literature, however, Philo's writings
lack the New Testament's emphasis upon the prophetic and escha-
33. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations," pp. 304 f. tological dimensions of the Hebrew Scriptures. 38 For Philo the
34. Pt. 1, esp. 252 fr. d R 'd M' h' necessary perspective on the Old Testament is not so integrally
35. E. g., E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Gran apl s, lC ..
related to eschatology and historical revelation.
Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 45 fr., 54 fr.
36 Noted also by Bonsirven, pp. 324, 348 fr.
37: Cf. Bonsirven, p. 252: "Le Judaisme est la Religio~ de la Tora, compo~tant 38. Thus C. F. D, MOule in his important article, "Fulfillment-Words in the New
pour la Loi divine un culte savant et pieux: de cette proprll!te fondamentale derivent Tc:tam~nt: Use and Abuse," NT~ 14 (1967/68), 311, points out that there is in
Philo Virtually no use of the 'Il"A71PouJI-words so common in the New Testament.
tous les caracteres de l'exegese juive."
THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
19
The most striking similarities to the New Testament's use of the coincidence that both the Qumran community and the primitive
Old are probably to be found in the Qumran Scrolls. The affinity church saw in Isa. 40:3 a direct command or prophecy relating
between the use of the Old Testament in the scrolls and in the to their own times (1QS viii, 13-16; cf. Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6;
New Testament doubtless hinges upon the fact that both the John 1:23). Nor is it a matter of chance that both the Qumran
Qumran community and the primitive church saw in their own commentator and the apostle Paul saw in Hab. 2:4 a reference to.
times and among themselves the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. 39 faith in their own founder or Lord (1Qp Hab. viii, 1-3; cf. Rom.
One might characterize both the New Testament and the Qumran 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Moreover, similar patterns in the use of the Old
use of the scriptures as historical, prophetic, or eschatological. ~t is Testament emerge in both the scrolls and the New Testament
historical in the sense that the historical and revelatory situation desp~te. the differences in literary genre. (There are, for example:
in which the community finds itself is the indispensable ingredient no bIbhcal commentaries, strictly speaking, in the New Testament.)
of the hermeneutical process; prophetic in that the scriptures are Joseph Fitzmyer has classified the non-pesher scroll quotations into
seen as written about or directed toward the events transpiring in four basic types: the literal or historical class, in which the original
and around the community;40 eschatological in that these events sense of the text is preserved; the modernized texts, which are
are understood as the culmination, or the anticipation of the cul- applied to new situations in the life of the community (Hab. 2:4
mination, of God's sovereign activity as Lord of history. It is no in 1Qp Hab. viii, 1-3 would presumably fit this category also); the
acco~modated texts, which are taken out of context or essentially
39. Of. Herbert Braun, Qumranund das Neue Testament (~~bingen: Mo~r, 1966), modIfied; and the eschatological texts, in which an original promise
2: 306. For a summary of the literature on the use and exposltlon of the Scnpt~e~ at
Qumran, see pp. 301-25. A brief, but illuminating discussion of Qu~ran blbh~al or threat is. applied to the yet outstanding culmination of history
interpretation is to be found in Geza Vermes, "The .Qw.nran .Interpr~tatlOn of Scnp: toward which the community is pointing. Fitzmyer 41 sees these
ture in its Historical Setting," The Annual of Leeds Unzver;zty Oriental Society, 6 (1966-68,
Dead Sea Scroll Studies 1969), 84-97. Cf. also the substantial work of O. Betz, Offenbarung same basic types occurring frequently in the New Testament, al-
lind SchriftfoTschung in dcr Qumransekte, Wissenschaftliche U~tersuchun,~en z.um .Neuen though he wisely hesitates to claim that these categories exhaust
Testament, no. 6 (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1960), and L. H. Silberman, Unriddling the
Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher," Revue de the full range of the use of the Old Testament by New Testament
42
Qumran, 3 (1961), 323-64. writers. Nevertheless, in view of the similarities in eschatology
With good reason Moule, "Fulfillment-Words in the New Test~ent," p. 311,
speaks of a greater sense of completeness in the New Testament than m the Qumran
~nd historical situation, it is not surprising that a related similarity
sources, a situation doubtless indicative of the difference between Qumran and New m the ways of adopting and adapting the Scriptures can also be
Testament eschatology. perceived.
40. In this connection F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 67 f., compares I Pet. 1:10-12 and 1 Qp Hab. In a more technical vein, recent research has also uncovered
vii. 1-5. th some striking similarities between the text-form of the New Testa-
According to I Pet. 1 :10-12a, "The prophets who. prophesi;d o.f the grace at
was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they m9-u~red what pe~son ment q~otations and those of Qumran. 43 The investigation and
or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predlctmg the suffen~gs c.ompanson of these text-forms may prove to be an interesting and
of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were not servmg
sIgmficant aspect of the study of the Old Testament text in Qum-
themselves, but you.... " " . . . ."
The Qumran community (1 Qp Hab. vu. 1-5) had. a slIDliar view. God c?m- ran. The intriguing question stimulating-or plaguing-such in-
manded Habakkuk to write the things that were commg upon the last generation, vestigation will be whether affinities in such text-forms between
but the fulfillment of the epoch he did not make known to him. And as f~r the words,
'so he may run may read' their interpretation concerns the teacher of Righteousness,
to whom God made know'n all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets." 41. "~he Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations," pp. 297-333.
42. Ibid., p. 330, esp. n. 2.
In the latter text Vermes, "The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture," p. 91, sees
the following assumptions or principles of Qumran prophetic exegesis at. wor~: the 43. J. de Waard, A Comparative Study oj the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls
mysterious character of the prophetic word; its reference to end.-events; the Imml~en~e an1 in the New. Testament,. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of]udah, no. 4 (Leiden:
of those events for the contemporary generation; the revelatIOn of the mysteries 10 Bnll, 1965), dIScerns eVidence of a relationship between the Qumran text and Old
question to the Teacher of Righteousness. Testament quotations in the New, particularly in the speeches of Acts· see pp 17-26
41 ff., 78 ff. ' . ,
the New Testament and Qumran mean that the New Testament with the Old Testament, regarded it as God's word, and reflected
writers or speakers knew the Hebrew text in forms similar to those upon his own mission in the light of a religious perspective funda-
known at Qumran or that the Qumran text-form or s'omething mentally informed by it. On the other hand, there is a real problem
similar underlies the Greek translations employed by the New as to the extent to which the use of the Old Testament in the New-
Testament writers. Already de Waard has attacked the well-known even. in. the Gospels-reflects directly or indirectly Jesus' own
view that the speeches of Acts are Luke's composition with the meditatIOn over, and interpretation of, the Scriptures. '
argument that affinities with Qumran text-forms indicate that an To attempt to adjudicate this question is too great a task for a
Aramaic tradition at least stands as the basis of the speeches. 44 gener~ essay ~uch as this. But since the question cannot ultimately
Although the early Christian appropriation of the Old Testa- be skirted, It ~s therefore incumbent upon us at least to describe
ment cannot be explained solely on the basis of documents of the ?resent state of affairs and to venture an opinion concerning it.
contemporary Judaism, indispensable light is shed upon the New WhIle there may be a great variety of viewpoints on this question,
Testament by them. Clearly they show that the ways in which the there seem to have developed two basic positions around which
New Testament writers put the Old Testament to use are not at or between which, others take their place. For convenience w;
all unprecedented. While this usage may seem at places arbitrary may call these ~~e c?nservative and the radical views, recognizing
enough, it is by and large neither more nor less arbitrary than the the lack of precls~o~ I~herent in such a characterization. According
contemporary use of the Old Testament among Jews. Against this to the conservative View, represented particularly by such lumi-
background it is to be understood and appreciated. 45 naries as Dodd, the. tw~ ~ansons, and Hoskyns, Jesus very care-
fully thought out his mISSIOn and message in reflection upon the
THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY Old Testament, and his line of thought can be recovered from the
New Testament (and the Old). This view has had considerable
The use oj the Old Testament by Jesus
populari~y also in America. According to the more radical position
Is the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament grounded current In the Bultmann school and espoused by a number of
upon its prior use in the primitive church? Most critics would other scholars, including some in the English-speaking world the
surely answer affirmatively, regardless of how many reservations Old . Testamen~ quotations in the Gospels are largely the res~lt of
they might hold regarding some recent theories of its use. Is the the InterpretatIVe work of the early Christian church, which used
primitive church's use of the Old Testament grounded upon the Old !est~ment to prove the messiahship of Jesus and to make
Jesus' own understanding and interpretation of the Old Testament? other POInts In controversy with Judaism. Bultmann's view that
On this question there is not even the most general kind of con- Jesus was a first-century.Palestinian rabbi as well as an apocalyptic
sensus. Only sheer temerity would deny that Jesus was familiar p~ophet would seem to Imply that Jesus was an interpreter of the
wIll of ?od. found in the Scriptures. Bultmann does not deny this,
44. Pp. 78 ff.
45 A rapidly developing interest in Jewish exegetical techniques in the period of
b~t maIntaInS a profound skepticism as to the possibility of recov-
Christian origins is strongly reflected in recent research and publication. Along with ering Jesus' Own interpretations of the Scriptures from the New
the earlier work of Doeve,Vermes and Borgen mentioned elsewhere, the following Testament, which is "Christian" in a sense in which Jesus was not. 46
recent articles exemplify this interest: R. Le Deaut's review of A. G. Wright'S The
Literary Genre oj Midrash (Staten Island: Alba House, 1967), translated and published
as "Apropos a Definition of Midrash" in Interpretation, 25 (1971), 259-82; J. W. .46. Bu.ltmann's own position on Jesus' use of the Old Testament is implicit in his
Bowker, "Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yellammedenu Form," NTS, 14 ~~~nG~schlchte der synoptischen Tradition, -Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des
(1967/68), 96-111; E. Earle Ellis, "Midrash, Targum and New Testament Quota- alth Testaments, n.s. 1.2; 4th .ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958),
tions," Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour oj Matthew Black, ed. Ellis and M. .ou~h he does ~ot set It forth 10 a comprehensive statement. On pp. 51 f., however
Wilcox (Edinburgh: Clark, 1969), pp. 61-69; idem, "Midraschartige Ziige in den he 1Odlcat~s how 10 t~e context of Streitgespriiche Old Testament words are attributed
Reden der Apostelgeschichte," ZNTW, 62 (1971), 94-104. to Jesus, WIthout deny10g that some may actually go back to him (see also pp. 272 fr.,
These two positions are closely but not inextricably bound to tion, namely, R. H. Fuller and Norman Perrin. 48 Moreover, the
the question of whether Jesus understood his earthly ministr~ as view once common among English scholars that Jesus thought of
messianic. The synoptic Gospels, beginning with Mark, certamly himself in terms of the Isaianic Suffering Servant has been sub-
interpret this ministry in that way in accor~ with .their Christia~ jected to searching scrutiny by the Englishwoman M. D. Hooker,
faith. Yet the problems of taking the Gospels , p~rtlcularly 4~ark s who has pronounced a negative judgment upon it.49 Moreover,
portrayal, as historical fact have often been pomte~ out. Cer- Miss Hooker's negative conclusions are now reflected in the work
tainly they bear the imprint of faith's later interpretatIOn, whatever of the distinguished British scholar, C. K. Barrett. 50 Also, the
the facts may have been. If one accepts the Gospels' portrayal as Anglican Barnabas Lindars, whose stimulating monograph on the
basically historical, one is likely also to take s.eriousl~ t~e sever~l use of the Old Testament in the New generally takes up and affirms
hints and indications that Jesus performed hls meSSlamc role m the earlier work of Dodd, discreetly demurs at accepting the latter's
fulfillment of the Scriptures, especially insofar as he took it upon suggestion that Jesus is the originator of the exegetical methodology
himself to suffer and die. Thus those who accept the Gospel picture of the New Testament writers. 51
of a deliberately messianic ministry are inclined also to believe The present state of affairs admits of few unexceptionable gen-
that Jesus thought of his suffering as a fulfillment of Scripture, and eralizations on the question of Jesus' use of the Old Testament
particularly a fulfillment or represent~tion of the ~uffer~~g Serva~t beyond the acknowledgment that he in fact interpreted it. Thus
motif of Isaiah. Those who are skeptlcal of Jesus explIcltly meSSl- scholars of diverse perspectives such as W. D. Davies and Rudolf
anic consciousness-or at least skeptical of recovering it-tend to Bultmann can agree in describing Jesus as a rabbi. 52 While recent
regard the Scripture fulfillment motif as a theologoumenon of :he
earliest church and to question the view that Jesus thought of hlm- 48. Fuller, The Foundations oj New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner'S,
1965), passim, but especially pp. 108 f. and pp. 18 f., where Fuller adumbrates his
self as Suffering Servant. tendency to ascribe scripture fulfillment to the early church. Perrin's most recent
In this connection, it is remarkable that there has lately been statement of his position is to be found in Rediscovering the Teaching oj Jesus (New York:
some breaking of ranks, especially on the conservative side. T~o Harper & Row, 1967). He does not deny that Jesus used the Old Testament (p. 66)
but, like Fuller, tends to ascribe Old Testament exegetical work to the traditions of
British scholars who have come to maturation in America have m the early church (pp. 27 f., 176 f.; 185). Both Fuller and Perrin have departed from
recent years gone over to the more radical (or Bultmannian) posi- the predominant Anglo-Saxon affirmation of the explicitly messianic consciousness of
Jesus.
49. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence oj the Servant Concept oj Deutero-Isaiah in the
New Testament (London: S.P.C.K., 1959). Miss Hooker therefore brings into question
302 ff. and 329). On Bultmann's view of Jesus as rabbi see Jesus and the Wo~d, trans. the view of the distinguished Gottingen New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias
L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero (New York: Scribner'S, 1934), PI? ~7 ff.; for hlS under- that Jesus identified with the Servant; cf. Jeremias and Walther Zimmerli, The Servant
standing of the relation between the historical Jesus and the Chnstlan ke~ygma consult
oj God, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 20 (London: SCM, 1957). Jeremias has re-
his Theology oj the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grabel (New York: Scnbner's, 1951),
plied in a review of Hooker, Journal oj Theological Studies, n.s. 11 (1960),140-44, and
1: 3-52. if h U· • I J
47. Perhaps most memorable is Albert Schweitzer's The Quest 0 t e IZlstorzea ;sus,
the continuation of the discussion scarcely permits us to treat the matter as settled.
50. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (London: S.P.C.K., 1967), pp. 39 f.
trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1954),. pp. 330ff., ~~e~tlall~ 51. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance oj the Old Testament Quotations
agreeing with W. Wrede's Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangellen, 2nd e~. (G~t~mgen.
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), p. 30.
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), esp. pp. 9-22. The most thor~ughgomg cr~tlqu~ of
52. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, esp. pp. 57 ff., and W. D. Davies, The Sermon on
the Marcan framework is K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschlchte Jesu: L~terarls~he
the Mount (New York: Oxford, 1966), pp. 129 ff. and 154 ff. A helpful inventory and
Untersuchungen zur altesten Jesusiiberliejerung (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919). The dl~cultles
initial discussion of the Old Testament in the sayings of Jesus has been made by
of taking the Marcan framework as historical have been. rei~erated by D. E.,Nmeham,
T. W. Manson, "The Old .Testament in the Teaching of Jesus," Bulletin oj the John
"The Order of Events in St. Mark's Gospel-An ExammatlOn of Dr. Dodd s Hypoth-
Rylands Library, 34 (1951/52), 312-32. Two more recent works, Perrin, Rediscovering
esis," in his Studies in the Gospels (Oxford: Oxford U~iv~rsity. P~ess, 1955), and J. M. the Teaching oj Jesus, (see above, n. 48) and L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The
Robinson, A New Quest oj the Historical Jesus, Studles m Bl~hcal Theology; n~ .. 25 Formation oj Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and oj the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par,
(L on d aD.. SCM, 1959) , pp. 35 ff. For a brief summary of "a wlde consensus
. "
of opmlon
h 1 Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series, no. 1 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1966),
concerning the nature of the Marcan framework by a conservatlv~ SC a ar, se~ in rather different ways undertake investigations of Old Testament material attributed
Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words oj Jesus, trans. Norman Perrm (New York.
to Jesus. While Perrin's work follows well-established form- and redaction-critical
Scribner's, 1966), pp. 91 f., esp. p. 92, n. 1. lines, Hartman concentrates on the relation of the material in question to Jewish
criticism manifests a discernible trend toward greater recognition with the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament books.
of the role of the early church in the development of Christology For most of what can be said on that subject will stand whatever
generally, as well as in the christological use of the Old Testament, may be decided about historical origins, whether with Jesus or the
it scarcely justifies the assumption that Jesus did not reflect upon early church.
his own mission in light of the Scriptures. At least his authoritative
interpretation of Scripture implies a uniquely authoritative, if not The use oj the Old Testament in the primitive church
an explicitly messianic, self-consciousness. The problem of Jesus'
use of the Old Testament, particularly in connection with his own The use of the Old Testament in the earliest preaching is amply
self-understanding, is difficult for. almost the same reason that the attested in the Books of Acts. While the role of Luke in the com-
problem of his messianic self-consciousness is difficult. For at points position of the speeches was certainly considerable, recent research
in the Gospel where Jesus speaks in terms later employed by the tends to confirm the judgment of Martin Dibelius, as well as Dodd,
Christian community it is often hard to decide what, if anything, that they are based on earlier tradition. 53 That this should be the
goes back to the historical Jesus. This is especially true if the critic case may also be inferred from I Cor. 15:3 f., where Paul recites
eschews both the orthodox and the critically orthodox ways of cut- the basic elements of the kerygmatic tradition, which are affirmed
ting the Gordian knot, that is, either, to maintain that the Gospels to be-doubtless in the tradition as well as in Paul's own view-
accurately portray Jesus' own mind or, alternatively, to regard all "according to the scriptures." The way in which not only direct
explicit-and some implicit-expressions of Christology (or mes- scripture quotations but also implicit ones and allusions are im-
sianology) as the work of the later church. In this connection Jesus' bedded in the narratives of the Gospels, especially the Passion nar-
use of the Old Testament might profitably be made the subject of ratives, also attests the widespread and primitive use of the Old
further investigation, since it represents an important instance in Testament in the early church. The fact of this extensive use of
which an external criterion, i. e. the textual traditions of the Old the Old Testament is relatively easy to confirm. All one really has
Testament, can serve as a check and a guide for the judgments of to do is read the New Testament. The purpose, manner, and origin
the critic. (For example, an Old Testament reference reflecting of this usage are another matter.
the Hebrew text or the Targums will presumably have a higher Whoever addresses himself to this series of problems has even-
claim to authenticity than one reproducing the Septuagint.) . tually to deal with the matter of the exact source of the Old Tes-
Naturally, the investigator would do well to begin with those tament material in the New. Since the invention of printing in
citations which do not relate directly to the questions of Jesus' relatively modern times the availability, transport, and storage of
messianic consciousness and his death and thereby attempt to the Bible has not been a significant difficulty for Christians, Jews,
establish a basis for further, more difficult, judgments. and biblical scholars. But prior to the printing press books were
For our present purposes the obvious impossibility of adjudi- relatively scarce and literally weighty, so that carrying around the
cating the questions and issues surrounding Jesus' use of the Old Old Testament would have been a considerable job. This con-
Testament is not an insurmountable obstacle. Although this is an sideration alone might have prompted itinerant Christian mis-
important area for research and theological reflection, it is never-
53. Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. B. L. Woolf (New York: Scrib-
theless possible and legitimate to circumvent it in order to deal ner's, 1935), pp. 15 ff.,· and C. H. Dodd, The ApostOlic Preaching and its Developments
(New.Y<;~k: Har~~r Br: Row, 1936), pp. 17 ff. More recently de Waard has argued
for pnmltIve tradltlon In the speeches on the basis of affinities with the Qumran Old
exegetical or midrashic techniques. In a similar fashion Birger Gerhardsson has ~estament textual tradition (see above, n. 42). Lindars, pp. 38-45, shows the tradi-
investigated the temptation narratives in The Testing of God's Son (Matt 4:7-11 & tlonal character of the Old Testament quotations, particularly in the Pentecost speech
Par): An Anarysis of an Early Christian Midrash (Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament o~ Peter. Cf. also Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) espe-
Series, no. 2; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1966). cially pp. 49, 180-86. '
D. MOODY SMITH, JR. THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW 27
26
sionaries to make notes on the Old Testament texts most useful in limbo to which the proposals of very learned men are often rele-
proclaiming and proving the truth of the Gospel. On grounds of gated for lack of a competent critic, until the publication in 1957
other and more scholarly evidence Rende! Harris several decades of C. H. Dodd's slim but important volume According to the Scrip-
ago suggested that they did just that. On the basis of evidence tures: The Substructure oj New Testament Theology. Dodd acknowledged
adduced from the New Testament, patristic, and later documents, the significance of the hypothesis set forth by Harris insofar as it
he propounded his theory of a "testimony book" of Old Testament underlined the evidence for the primitive and traditional character
quotations widely used in the early church. 54 Harris began from of the use of the Old Testament in the New, as well as the wide-
the fact that there exists a third-century collection of testimonies spread agreement among early Christians as to the importance
attributed to Cyprian. On the basis of such criteria as recurring and application of certain scriptures. For Dodd the most primitive
peculiar texts, sequences of texts, erroneous ascriptions of author- Christian tradition was the kerygma,56 the generally uniform an-
ship, editorial prefaces, comments or conclusions, especially.polem- nouncement of the grace of God in Christ. But this aboriginal
ical ones-the testimony book was originally directed agamst the proclamation was, according to Dodd, given its original signifi-
Jews-Harris discerned traces of the testimony book in Tertullian, cance and exposition through the Old Testament scriptures. By
Irenaeus, and Justin, not to mention Bar Salibi and Matthew the the time of the earliest New Testament authors much of the funda-
Monk! Turning to the New Testament he found there similar mental exegesis and interpretation of the Scriptures had already
evidences of a testimony book: the same passage is frequently been done and could be presupposed as agreed upon. Dodd points
quoted by New Testament writers; sometimes it appears in an to the fact that the Lo-Ammi passage from Hosea (2:23) and the
identical or similar form differing from the Septuagint; certain Isaiah passages concerning the remnant (10:22 f.; cf. 1:9), the
passages appear in combination in more than one New Testament foundation stone of Zion (28:16), and the stone of stumbling (8:14)
text (notably Isa. 28:16 and 8:14, in I Pet. 2:8 ff. and Rom. 9:32 f.); are in Romans (9-11) all assumed to apply to the situation brought
sometimes passages are ascribed to the wrong Old Testament book about by the coming of Christ. Moreover, all these passages save
(the famous instance of the· Malachi passage ascribed to Isaiah in one are used, under the same assumption, in I Peter. 57
Mark 1:2, 3; there is also the problem of the Zechariah quotation Despite his recognition of the significance of Harris's proposal,
attributed to Jeremiah in Matt. 27:9); occasionally passages seem Dodd nevertheless rejected the testimony book hypothesis. While
to have been brought together on the basis of some key word (e. g. in his view the same Old Testament passages occur in different,
the passages governed by the term stone in I Pet. 2:6-8; Rom. 9:32 f.; and apparently unrelated, New Testament books with significant
Mark 12:10-11 ff.; Acts 4:11). frequency, the recurrence of common textual variations, the same
Harris argued his case with great deftness and erudition. His combinations of passages and the like are not so frequent as to
proposal was taken very seriously in a~most a~l qu~rters a~d ac-
cepted in some. 55 For most, however, It remamed m the kind of 1889), p. 203, suggested that Greek-speaking Jews probably produced propaganda
manuals consisting of extracts from the Old Testament.
54. J. Rendel Harris, with the assistance ofVac~er Burch:, Testimo~ies, 2 v?ls. (Cam- Harris's proposal of a Testimony Book has been accepted more or less completely
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916). HarrIS's, book IS nO,t easIly available, but by D. Plooij, Studies in the Testimony Book (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers-
a brief summary is to be found in C. H; Dodd, Accordzng to the Scriptures: The Substructure Maatschappij, 1932), and by B. P. W. Stather Hunt, Primitive Gospel Sources (New
of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), pp. 23 ff. .' York: Philosophical Library, 1951), who makes it the basis of his research into the
55. It should be noted, however, that Harris's proposal was n~t.wlthout Its fore- Gospels. Robert A. Kraft, "Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the 'Testimony Book' Hypoth-
runners; for example, A. Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg, Der tra~ltlonelle ,alttestament- esis," JBL, 79 (1960),336-50, does not find support for Harris's theory in the Epistle
liche Schriftbeweis "de Christo" und "de evangelio" in der alten Kirche bls zu~ ZeIt Euseb~ ~on of Barnabas, but rather discovers evidence for the existence of a variety of briefer
Caesarea (Halle: Niemeyer, 1913), argues for the existence of a testimony tradltlo~ "testimony note sheets" (cf. 4Q Test).
with roots in the New Testament community, but not for a pre-New Testament testi- 56. The Apostolic Preaching, pp. 7 ff.; cf. According to the Scriptures, p. 12, n. 1.
mony book. Earlier Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 57. According to the Scriptures, p. 23.
justify the testimony book hypothesis. In other words, the kind of use of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers, Dodd
evidence that scarcely admits of any other explanation than a contends that it was not fundamentally arbitrary: "In general ...
common, written source is too sparse to support the hypothesis of the writers of the New Testament, in making use of passages from
an extensive testimony book. Aside from this important fact, the the Old Testament, remain true to the main intention of their
lack of concrete evidence for the existence of such a book in the first writers." 62
two centuries makes the hypothesis questionable. So widely-known Dodd's work received a favorable reception, especially in the
a book would surely have been widely and explicitly cited. 58 One English-speaking world,63 and stimulated renewed interest in this
could even imagine that it would have been incorporated into the aspect of biblical study. Nevertheless, some doubt remains as to
New Testament. whether all his major contentions have been equally well estab-
Dodd seeks, however, to incorporate the valid aspects of Harris's lished. Since the discovery of relatively brief collections of. Tes-
testimony book theory into his own counter-proposal. Not a fixed timonia at Qumran (4Q Test; cf. 4Q Flor), Dodd's arguments
book of Old Testament quotations, but a nonetheless real, if largely against Harris's testimony book hypothesis may stand in need of
oral, consensus concerning the important Old Testament texts lies some qualification. 64 Whether Dodd's own proposal of a consensus
behind the New Testament, and is reflected in the repeated use of or established tradition is less vulnerable to criticism is a matter
the same and neighboring texts in the various books. 59 Dodd ad- of debate. Over a decade ago A. C. Sundberg registered a strong
duces about fifteen important texts which are used more than once demurral, pointing out that 42 percent of the Old Testament chap-
in the New Testament. He then shows how these and related or ters cited in the New are cited by more than one author, including
contiguous texts fall into three groupings (apocalyptic-escha- 71 percent of the 56 chapters of Isaiah that are cited and one-third
tological scriptures, scriptures of the New Israel, scriptures of the of the Psalms. 65 Against such a statistical background, instances of
Servant of the Lord and Righteous Sufferer) which taken together the use of the same or proximate Old Testament texts in different
form the Bible of the early church. He also relates the use of the New Testament books seem less impressive as evidence of a common
Old Testament to the principle doctrines of early Christian the- tradition. Moreover, Sundberg maintained on the basis of another
ology (the church, the messianic titles, the death of Christ). 60 statistical reckoning that those books which on Dodd's accounting
Further, Dodd maintains that there was agreement not only on comprise the Bible of the early church do not actually predominate
the choice a.nd extent of scriptural texts, but also on the methods in the entire New Testament. 66 While Sundberg's statistics seem
of exegesis and other uses of those texts. Isolated quotations are at first to be devastating to Dodd's theory, one must bear in mind
generally not intended as proof-texts, but as pointers to whole that the latter's proposal was not based primarily on a statistical
Old Testament contexts, knowledge of which is assumed. This survey of individual instances, but involved judgments about the
consistent usage of the Old Testament, which at bottom was in- ways in which portions of the Old Testament were used repeatedly
tended to manifest the ground of the Christian message in "the to confirm certain central doctrines of primitive Christianity. Addi-
determinate counsel of God," is common to all the major portions tionally, however, Sundberg has questioned Dodd's contention
of the New Testament. As the basic interpretative mode of the that most Old Testament quotations in the New are dependent on
early Christian kerygma, it is the substructure of New Testament
theology. 61 62. Ibid., p. 130.
In opposition to much modern critical opinion concerning the 63. Cf. Lindars, p. 14; Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts, p. 68.
64. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, "4Q Testamonia, and the New Testament," Theological
Studies, 15 (1957), 513-37.
58. Ibid., pp. 26 f. 65. "On Testimonies," Novum Testamentum, 3 (1959), 268-81. Cf. the negative
59. Ibid., pp. 28 ff. comments of Alfred Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen <.itate und Anspielungen in
60. Ibid., chap. 4, "Fundamentals of Christian Theology." Markusevangelium (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlaghaus, 1965), pp. 32 f.
61. Ibid., pp. 126 f. 66. These statistical phenomena are displayed in two tables; Suhl, pp. 272 f.
D. MOODY SMITH, JR.
30
67 Matthean tradition, and Barnabas Lindars refined Dodd's position
their Old Testament context for proper understanding and denied in attempting to account for the fact (pointed out by Sundberg)
that it is possible to discern an agreed-upon or uniform method of that the same Old Testament quotations are often put to different
exegesis. Divergent uses of the same text argue .against the theory uses in the New Testament. Since Stendahl's work is much more
of a widespread and primitive common exegetical met~od. Con-
circumscribed in focus, we shall consider it in connection with the
cerning these matters it is difficult to make an ~verall. ~udgme~t, use of the Old Testament in the Gospel according to Matthew.
but Sundberg at least points to aspects of Dodd s posltlOn which
Lindars's work, however, takes up and develops the proposals of
have not as yet been clearly established. Dodd directly and comprehensively.
Accepting Dodd's repudiation of Harris's hypothesis, Lindars
The Junction oj the Old Testament in early Christian preaching and teaching undertook to refine Dodd's rather general proposals concerning
the ~se of the Old Testament in primitive Christianity. It is q.ardly
The question of the exact source of most, or even a great many,
of the Old Testament quotations in the New may not be ame~able
posslble to do justice to Lindars's work apart from a consideration
of the detail and nuances of his arguments. Nevertheless, the main
to solution by any comprehensive theory. Dodd's a.pproach IS n~t
~hr.ust of his investigation is clear enough. Beginning from Dodd's
so neat as Harris's for example, in view of its excluslOn of the testI-
mony book hyp;thesis, and really leaves undecided the e~act mSlghts that early Christians used the Old Testament to support
and defend the kerygma and that the blocks of material from
nature of the sources upon which the New Testament wnte~s
which the specific quotations are drawn are of very great impor-
drew. Interest has actually been moving in the direction of Dodd s
own principal focus upon the manner and purpose of the appro- tance for the understanding of their appropriation and function
Lindars moved forward along lines suggested by the Qumra~
priation of the Old Testament. Not surprisingl~, Do?d. ~ontend~d
scrolls and particularly Stendahl's work The School oj St. Matthew
that the primal function of the Old Testament m pnmltlV~ ?hns-
tianity was to support the assertions of the kerygma-~ngmally,
to formulate an initial conception of early Christian exegesis. 68
of course, in a Jewish context-to show that they e.re m accord v: Qumran pesher exegesis, in which texts and textual traditions were
chosen and even modified to fit the theological needs and historical
with the determinate council of God. Allowing for leglumate debate
over the content and possible variety of the kerygma, one must at situation of the community, provides a fruitful model for under-
the same time acknowledge the fundamental rightness of Dodd's standing the development of Old Testament exegesis within the
proposal. Beyond this, however, much remains to be clarified primitive church. (The relevance of Qumran to Matthew has been
concerning the manner and motivations of the use of the Old suggested by Stendahl, who proposed that similar exegesis is to be
Testament in the developing church, which had many ~eeds a~d
found also in John, 69 and Ellis adduced evidence for the same
phenomenon in or behind Paul's use of the Old Testament. 70)
functions other than the promulgation and demonstratlOn of Its
The analogy of Qumran provides historical precedent for the kind
missionary preaching, important as that remained.
Two subsequent and rather more technical works have elaborat~d of development which Lind~rs projected for primitive Christianity,
or modified Dodd's position. Krister Stendahl a~alyzed. a special a development which involves modification of the Old Testament
class of Old Testament quotations in Matthew with a view to re- text, but more importantly, a shift in application of those texts in
covering their function and Sit;:; im Leben there and in the pre- accord with the changing situation of the church. 71 This shift in
68. Cf. Lindars, pp. 13 ff.
67 On the question of "respect for context" in the use of the Old Testament ~n 69. Pp.162f.
. .. R T Mead "A Dissenting Opinion about Respect for Context m 70. Pp. 139 ff.
t h e synoptlCS, see . . , h ak· ·th S L
Old Testament Quotations," NTS 10 (1963/64), 279-89, w 0 t es"lSsue Wl •• 71. On mo~ification of t~e text, s~e Lindars, pp. 17, 24 ff.; on shift of application
Edgar "Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament, NTS, 9 (1962/ see pp. 17 ff. Lmdars recogmzes the dlfiiculty of moving too quickly from the Qumran
63), 5'5-62, and denies that such respect characterizes instances of Old Testament pesher model to New Testament exegesis of the Old.
citation attributed to Jesus.
application is generally a departure from an earlier evidenced or suffering of the Messiah was anticipated, and therefore vindicated,
putative use of the Old Testament to support or defend the kerygma. by Scripture. In this Passion apologetic such passages as Isaiah 53;
The presumptive occasion for such a shift is the need for a relevant Psalms 22, 31, 34, 41, 69, and 109; and the book of Zechariah
apologetic to meet new situations. 72 For example, Isaiah 53 was played a prominent role. Lindars endeavors to show through close
almost surely used at a very early time in connection with Jesus' examination of quotations in the New Testament how these pas-
Passion. But explicit citations of it in the New Testament and other sages were used in the Passion apologetic. In some cases this usage
early literature have to do with his miracles (Matt. 8:17) or with must be inferred from such subtle matters as interpretative varia-
the lesson of humility that may be drawn from his silent suffering tions in the text, especially when the New Testament contains no
(I Clement 16).73 instances of the use of a given quotation in direct connection with
As will be apparent, Lindars's view of the early Christian use of the Passion. This Passion apologetic was in no sense an afterthought,
the Old Testament is more complex than C.H. Dodd's, for devel- presupposing the developed theologia crucis. Rather, it was the seed-
opments in the use of texts are described in great detail. Indeed, bed in which the doctrine of the atonement, already stated in the
he sees a development within the primitive kerygma concomitant tradition behind I Cor. 15:3, grew. 76
with, and related to, the use of the Old Testament. Fundamental Only after the application of the Old Testament to the Resur-
in his view is the proclamation that Jesus has been raised from the rection and death of Jesus did attention turn to his earthly ministry.
dead and its corollary, deduced with the help of Old Testament Then the Old Testament (Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1) was first used in con-
texts, that he is the Messiah. How this inference was drawn is ex- nection with Jesus' baptism (cf. Mark 1:11) to help demonstrate
plained by Lindars with particular reference to the use of Ps. the messianic character of his entire ministry. 77 A similar motiva-
16:8-11 in the Pentecostal speech of Peter (Acts 2:22-36).74 Al- tion helps explain the conflation of these same texts in the trans-
though the Resurrection itself was proclaimed as the literal fulfill- figuration scene (Mark 9:7). What Lindars calls the "apologetic
ment of Old Testament prophecy, this most primitive use of the of response" grew up in direct relation to the· portrayal of the
Old Testament is often submerged in the New. For example, earthly ministry as the arena of messianic revelation, for the latter
Hos. 6:2, which was likely used as the scripture proof of the tradi- naturally raises the question of the culpability of those who fail to
tion of Jesus' Resurrection on the third day, is not explicitly cited recognize the messianic character of Jesus' work.78 This .question
in the New Testament. 75 No sooner was Jesus proclaimed as raised tends ultimately to be resolved in the direction of the theory of a
from the dead and as the Messiah than it became necessary to deliberate policy of self-reservation or concealment on the part of
explain his ignominious death. Within a Jewish context the idea Jesus, the messianic secret. 79 In the process, however, the Scrip-
of a crucified Messiah rejected by his own people was, as Paul tures (e. g. Isa. 6:9; 28:16) are adduced to show that the rejection
recognized (I Cor. 1:23), an offense. The early Christians' response of Jesus by the greater part of his people in no wise affects adversely
to the objection elicited by this state of affairs was the development his messianic claim, but is rather the fulfillment of Scripture.
of a Passion apologetic, by which they sought to show that the The final chapters of Lindars's book are devoted to a considera-
tion of the Old Testament in the development of the tradition
72. Ibid., p. 30. concerning Jesus' birthplace (chap. 5), quotations in Paul (chap. 6),
73. Ibid., pp. 20-22.
74. Ibid., pp. 36 if. Recently, H. W. Boers has sought to discern in Psalm 16 the
scriptural basis for the disciples' reflection upon Jesus' death, which in turn created 76. Ibid., p. 134: "Atonement theology and Passion apologetic are worked out
the psychological state of expectation leading to the resurrection experiences: see together, and naturally the same scriptures are useful for both."
"Psalm 16 and the Historical Origin of the Christian Faith," Zeitschrift fur die ncu- 77. Ibid., pp. 138 if.
testamentliche Wissenschaft, 60 (1969), lOS-to. 78. Cf. ibid., pp. 155, 187 f.
75. Lindars, pp. 59 if. 79. Ibid., pp. 158 f.
and in the early church generally, especially in Matthew and contributions of Harris, Dodd, and Lindars certainly provide a
John (chap. 7). He finds that the tradition of Jesus' birth in Beth- basis and stimulus for future investigations.
lehem has actually replaced an older tradition of his origin in
Nazareth. Although Paul's use of the Old Testament has its place
in the line of the church's exegetical work, Lindars finds that "he THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE
does not reproduce the christological texts nor argue that Jesus is NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS
the Messiah. This is simply taken for granted as an assured fact." 80
Strikingly, he maintains that the use of the Old Testament quota- In the preceding. section we have surveyed the problem of the
tions in John represents more nearly the older apologetic tradition ~se of th~ Old Testament in primitive Christianity, focusing atten-
than in Matthew, and that the latter really does not understand hon partIcularly on the works of Dodd and Lindars. The use of
the pesher quotations which Stendahl ascribed to the Matthean th~ Old ~estament by the New Testament writers is a distin-
school. 81 gUlshable, if finally an inseparable, question, for the history of the
The most notable aspect of this important book is Lindars's use a~d exegesis of the Old Testament by the early church ante-
effort comprehensively to grasp the Old Testament quotations in dates Its appropriation in the earliest New Testament documents
the New in the light of their Sitz im Leben in the development of by at least two decades. 83 Therefore the texts of the Old Testament
early Christian preaching and theology. Whether the picture which as appropriated by the New Testament writers may well have been
Lindars has drawn, admittedly in a hypothetical way, 82 will stand understood, in~e.rpreted, and even altered, along lines already laid
the test of further investigation remains to be seen. Many of his do~n by tra~ltlOnal exegesis. As we have already noted, Dodd
individual exegetical insights are extremely perceptive and sug- pomted to thIS phenomenon, Lindars made it the basis for his
gestive, while others are somewhat conjectural. But the attempt to study, and St~ndahl showed its peculiar relevance to Matthew.
probe into and behind the New Testament in order to trace the Recen~y Edwm Freed has investigated the use of the Old Testa-
development of primitive Christian reflection in and through the ment m John to ascertain its relation to an earlier textual and
Old Testament quotations is an exceedingly stimulating exercise exegetical tradition,84 while E. Earle Ellis has made proposals
and one that should prove quite fruitful. The reader familiar with along these lines with respect to Paul. 85 Although the use of the
form criticism will doubtless notice how Lindars's work seems to Old Tes~a~ent in the New must always be seen against this back-
confirm the perspectives and insights of that discipline. To what ground, It IS also clear that various New Testament writers under-
extent this is an independent corroboration of the basic insights of stand and m~e use of the Old Testament in distinctive ways. Our
form criticism is, however, difficult to say, since Lindars to some ~urpos.e here IS not. to engage in the kind of thoroughgoing con-
extent shares its basic presuppositions and methods. The idea that sideratIOn· or exegetIcal study that might be expected to advance
the use of the Old Testament in the New is fundamentally apolo- ?ur kno~ledge, but rather to point to the more salient, and perhaps
getic will doubtless bear further scrutiny, although there is little m some m~tances obvious, features of the use of the Old Testament
doubt of the importance of the apologetic factor, especially in the by the major New Testament authors or traditions in the light of
original Jewish milieu. That further work remains to be done in recent research.
this obscure but important area scarcely needs to be said, but the
s. ~3. I.:~ II Thessalonians which may be earlier scarcely come into consideration
ill e, ;Wl t e exception of II Thessalonians 2, Paul makes little use of the Old Test '
ment ill them. a-
80. Ibid., p. 247.
81. Ibid., pp. 259 fr. 84. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel oj John Supplements to Novum T t
mentum, no. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1 9 6 5 ) . ' es a-
82. Ibid., p. 9. 85. Pp. 139 fr.
Paul or are about to occur, is a common factor binding Qumran exegesis

to that of Paul and much of the New Testament. But despite the
The ground-breaking work on Paul's use of the Old Testament
similarities, which are related to their prophetic-eschatological
is Otto Michel's Paulus und seine Bibel (1929).86 It was followed a
viewpoint, Paul's Christology gives to his exegesis an emphasis on
decade later by Bonsirven's exhaustive comparison of Pauline usage
present eschatological fulfillment absent from Qumran.
with rabbinic exegesis. More recently Ellis has brought matters up
to date with his very useful book, Paul's Use oj the Old Testament At the acceptable time I have listened to you,
(1957). and helped you on the day of salvation.
Thereis little question of the importance of the Old Testament
So writes Second Isaiah (49:8), and Paul (II Cor. 6:2) comments,
in the development of Paul's thought. Despite the absence of Old
"Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of
Testament quotations from I Thessalonians, Philippians, and salvation." 92
much of I and II Corinthians, Harnack's view that Paul valued
Paul's use of the Old Testament may be summarized under four
the Old Testament only for polemical use against Jews or Jewish-
Christian opponents is no longer widely held. 87 Moreover, one may heads. First, and most important, there is his general prophetic
be quite certain that Paul's exegesis finds its place in his W?rl~, 0:vn and kerygmatic understanding of the Old Testament as the pre-
cursor, prefiguratiqn, and promise of the Gospel. Thus the Gospel
with real and obvious connections with his contemporanes, WIthin
was "promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scrip-
the church and outside. While he differs from the rabbis in his
total perspective on the Old Testament,88 this is rather because of tures" (Rom. 1:2) and "the law and the prophets bear witness'to
his different eschatological and christological perspective than on it" (Rom. 3:21). As we have already noted in the case of the quota-
account of a deliberately different method of dealing with scripture. tion from II Cor. 6:1 f., the Gospel can be announced in the lan-
Victor P. Furnish, who is disinclined to view Paul as a rabbi, 89 guage of the Old Testament. Moreover, Adam is said to be a
concedes Paul's kinship with the rabbinic style of biblical exegesis. 90 r{nros of the one who was to come (Rom. 5:14), and Abraham,
In all probability, however, Paul's peculiar slant on scripture is as the type or model of the man of faith, prefigures the Gospel
(Romans 4; Galatians 3).93 The Scripture is said to preach the
more closely paralleled in the Qumran community. Not only the
pesher exegesis,91 but the conviction that the Old Testament finds Gospel to him, saying (in the words of Gen. 12:3), "In you shall
its fulfillment in a new event or series of events which have occurred 92. Despite points of contact (Michel, pp. 107 f.), Pliul's approach to the Old
Testament is rather different from Philo's, for the latter largely lacks appreciation for
86. Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie,.no. 18 (~iitersloh: Bertelsmann, the historical and eschatological dimensions of the Old Testament. Probably Philo is
1929). Although Bultmann's review in Theologische Llteraturzeltung, 58 (1933), 15.1-59, not altogether typical of Hellenistic Judaism. Yet the Wisdom of Solomon also shows
was scarcely friendly, he 'at least granted the value of the volume as a summation of relatively little of Paul's prophetic eschatological viewpoint, despite its well-known
similarities to Paul's diagnosis of man's sinfulness.
scholarship. . . . . P r' h
87. "Das Alte Testament in den PaulmlSchen Br~efen undo m den au mlSC ~n 93. This use of the Old Testament may be distinguished from the purely proph~tic
Gemeinden," Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademle der Wlssenschaften zu l!erlzn, as "typological." Yet typology seems to be based on the premise of prophecy and
Sitzung der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 1928, pp. 124-41. Yet Harnac~ hImself fulfillment, particularly in Paul. Probably L. GoppeJt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung
did not doubt the importance of the scriptures in Paul's own thought. HIS theory des Alten Testaments in Neuen, Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie, no. 43
applied only to Paul's missionary c h u r c h e s . . . . (Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1939), goes too far in seeing typology as the dominant form
88. Cf., in addition to Bonsirven, Victor P. FurnISh, Theology and EthiCS In Paul of the use of the Old Testament in the New (p. 239). Nevertheless, typology may well
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), pp. 33 f. . . . be. the distinctly Christian form ofthe appropriation of the Old Testament. Cf. G. W. H.
89. Contrast W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some RabbiniC Elements In Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, Essays on Typology, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 22
Pauline Theology, 2nd ed. (London: S.P.C.K., 1955). (London: SCM, 1957): "While it is indisputably convenient to use one word to em-
90. Pp. 33, 40; cf. Furnish's brief but useful treatment of the Old Testament as a brace the study of all such linkages [between the Old Testament and the New], it is
source of Paul's ethical teaching (pp. 28-34,42 f.). . . . open to question whether typology is the right word" (p. 39). "The methods of han-
91. Ellis, pp. 139 ff. Such exegesis probably indicates Paul's connection WIth earlIer dling the Old Testament which were already practised in Judaism were allegorism
exegetical tradition. and the study of the fulfillment of prophecy. Historical typology, as defined above,
came into existence with Christendom" (p. 42).
all the nations be blessed" (Gal. 3:8). In somewhat less explicit or pr~bably best left unlabelled. It comprises a variety of instances in
emphatic ways, Paul also uses the language of the Old Testament which. Paul uses the Old Testament to prove a point, on the as-
to characterize the eschatological consummation (Phil. 2: 10 f.; cf. sumptlOn that Scripture is God's word. Particularly· interesting
Isa. 45:23; I Cor. 15:27; and Ps. 8:7) and to interpret jesus' min- subcategories are Paul's use of the Old Testament in connection
istry (Rom. 15:3; cf. Ps. 69:9). with wisdom (I Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9, 16; 3:19 f.) and in his description
A second typical Pauline usage might be called ecclesiastical- of the human situation (see esp. Rom. 3:9-20). Otherwise, Paul
parenetic. Paul uses the Old Testament as a source for the ethical can make use of the Old Testament to uphold Christian freedom
instruction and edification of the church. 94 He may do this in a (I Cor. 10:26); to give guidance concerning tongues (I Cor. 14:21);
variety of ways. Most simply Paul continues to apply individual to expound his eschatology (I Cor. 10:27, 54 f.); or to illuminate
commandments of the law to specific problems (cf. II Cor. 13:1), the relation .of Christ, and .Adam (15:45). This category naturally
although he may shift the application of the law in the light of his shades over mto Paul s ethical and parenetic use of the Old Testa-
new situation (I Cor. 9:8-10). Of course, it is not the case that the ment, where he often quotes the Old Testament in order to add
law simply remains in force. In light of the demonstration of God's force to his argument.
love in Christ's cross (cf. Rom. 5:8), the man of faith has a new There are, moreover, several passages in which Paul becomes
perspective from which to view even the law (Rom. 13:8-10; rather explicit in stating the role and status of the Old Testament
Gal. 5:13-15). Its entire meaning is love of neighbor; love is the in. the light of the Gospel. To say that he regards the Old Testa-
fulfillment of the law. Paul can also use the Exodus traditions in ment as a Christian book would be anachronistic. Yet Paul evi-
haggadic fashion to admonish the church (I Cor. 10:1-13), as he den~ly felt peculiarly empowered to apply the Old Testament to
can use the Old Testament to express exhortations or warnings C~ISt and to the church (see I Cor. 9:8-10; 10:11), and he makes
(Rom. 12:19 f.; I Cor. 5:15; II Cor. 6:16-18) or to support them this fact quite explicit. As far as Paul was concerned, the Old Tes-
(II Cor. 8:15; 9:9; Rom. 14:11). tament could not be rightly read apart from Christ and his spirit
A third distinguishable use of the Old Testament is found in (:1 Cor. 3:12-18). For the earlier preaching and exegetical tradi-
Paul's interpretation of the historical or historical-eschatological tlOn the Old Testament was the key to Christ in that it provided
situation in which he finds himself. Although it is not always pos- both a framework for understanding him and the promises and
sible clearly to distinguish this usage from the christological or other ad~II}?ratio~s of his coming. Already for Paul, however, a
kerygmatic one, since the historical-eschatological situation is fun- su~tle shift IS taking place. 95 For he can claim that the ancient
damentally conditioned by the coming of Christ, the appropriation scnp~ures themselves are not rightly understood apart from Christ
of the Old Testament as the key to the unfolding course of events a. claIm that was to be reiterated in the early church (cf. Joh~
is a clear feature of several Pauline passages, particularly Romans 5.38 ff.). For Paul, as a Jew, Christ still gained intelligibility from
9-11 (cf. also Rom. 15:8 ff.; Gal. 4:21 ff.; Phil. 2:10 ff.). Here the Old Testament; but a generation later, when most Christians
Paul's conception of the interplay between Israel and the Gentiles were not Jews, the shoe would be on the other foot. 96
in the history of salvation is based upon his exegetically grounded The ~orm of Paul's Old Testament quotations is predominantly
discussion of the present state of affairs between Israel and the septuagmtal, although there are a significant number which depart
church. Moreover, his last word concerning the mystery of God's
working in history is taken from the Old Testament (Rom. 11:34 f., 95. Lind~rs, pp. 17 ~., sees t~e recognition of a shift in the application of Old Testa-
quoting Isa. 40:13 and Job 35:7). m~! q~tauons. as basI; ~o a rI~ht understanding of their history in early Christianity.
A fourth and final category of Paul's use of the Scriptures is d d om. 16.25-27 IS mtenuonally omitted from this discussion because it is usually
regar e as secondar; and non-Pauline. Cf., for example, C. K. Barrett, The E istle
to the Romans, Harper s New Testament Comm tar· (N Y k· H :P
1958), pp. 10-13, 286 f. en les ew or. arper & Row,
94. Cf. Furnish, pp. 25 fr.
from any known Septuagint textual tradition. 97 Agreement with pre-Marcan origin. 101 Here the frequency of Old Testament allu-
the Masoretic text against the Septuagint is not frequent, although
sions and quotations in comparison to the rest of the Gospel in-
a number of Paul's pesher quotations may have been influenced by a
creases markedly. Strangely enough, however, most of these refer-
form of the Hebrew text. Ellis finds that Paul's conflated or com-
ences are not in any way noticed or marked as such. Likely they
bined quotations show a much higher than normal degree ·of devia-
belong in large measure to the very early tradition of the passion,
tion from the Septuagint,98 a fact which suggests their origin and
which was deeply influenced by the Old Testament. The earliest
transmission in the exegetical tradition of primitive Christianity.
disciples and their contemporaries doubtless searched the Scriptures
in order to unlock the secrets of Jesus' suffering and death. Also
Mark
rather striking is the absence in Mark of any reference to the Scrip-
Mark's use of the Old Testament is hard to isolate and char- tures in the Resurrection narrative (16:1-8; cf. Luke 24:25-27;
acterize. 99 Apparently he and the church standing behind him John 20:9; I Cor. 15:4; Acts 2:25-28), anabsence, however, which
regard the Old Testament as holy Scripture, divine revelation; yet is paralleled in Matthew.
even this is not undisputed,lOO for he at least represents Jesus as Mark's Old Testament quotations are taken primarily from the
taking a position in seeming opposition to some parts of scripture Septuagint, although there are variations. 102 In several instances
(7:14 ff.), albeit sometimes on the basis of scripture (10:5 ff.), Jesus seems to quote the Old Testament in its septuagintal form. lO ;!
Similarly, Mark apparently relies on a Christian tradition of At first glance this would seem to' indicate that these quotations
Old Testament interpretation. The combination of Malachi and had been placed on Jesus' lips by the evangelist or by the Hellenistic
Isaiah in a probable pesher quotation and Mark's ignorance of its church. Yet this conclusion is inevitable only in instances in which
exact origin both point in that direction. Moreover, the use of the the argument of a pericope is based upon the Septuagint. 104 Other-
Old Testament in Mark's passion narrative is in all probability of wise, it is quite possible that such quotations have been assimilated
to the Septuagint, a .procedure with ample precedent. Josephus,
97. Ellis, Paul's Use oj the Old Testament, p. 12, gives the number of these as thirty-
eight. whose native language was Aramaic, generally chose to quote the
98. Ibid., p. 12 (see esp. n. 5). ~ible ~ccording .to the Septuagint in his works, which were pub-
99. Since we are concerned primarily with the explicit use of the Old Testament lished m Greek. .
in the New, we shall not go into the question of the more subtle influence of the Old
Testament upon Mark, as important as that may be for the understanding of the whole The question of Mark's purpose in quoting the Old Testament
Gospel and for the question of the historical Jesus. Quite thoroughgoing in inter_ has recently become the subject of discussion. 105 It has ordinarily
preting Mark in terms of Old Testament typology is Austin Farrer, A Study in St. Mark
(London: Dacre, 1951).· His approach has not, however, gained wide acceptance. been assumed that the New Testament writers see the Old Testa-
Ulrich Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness. Theme in the Second Gospel and its ment standing in a relation of prophecy and fulfillment to the com-
Basis in the Biblical Tradition, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 39 (London:·· SCM,
1963), develops the theme of the wilderness in Mark's theology. His theses, however, ing of Christ, the growth of the church, and so on. Alfred Suhl,
have also met some opposition; cf. Ernest Edwin Best, The Temptation and the Passion:
The Marcan Soteriology, Society for New Testament Studies, ·Monograph Series, no. 2 101. For a discussion of this question with citation of relevant literature see Suhl
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965),pp. 25 ff. On Mark's use of the Old pp. 45-:-56. Admitted.ly, there is a difference of opinion as to when the Old Testamen;
Testament see further Best, pp. 134-59 and the literature cited there. quotatlOns and alluslOOS entered into the formation of the tradition.
Regrettably, Manfred Karnetzki's Tiibingen dissertation, "Die alttestamentlichen 102. Cf. R. H. Gundry, The Use oj the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, Supple-
Zitate in der synoptischen Tradition" (1955) has not been published. Apparently he ments to Novum Testamentum, no. 18 (Leiden: Brill,· 1967), pp. 5,9,28, 147 ff.; also
has undertaken to trace the history of the Old Testament material in. the synoptic Henry Barcla~ Swete,' The Gospel According to St Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction,
Gospels on form-critical grounds. See Joachim Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching oj the N.0tes .and IndIces (London: Macmillan, 1898), pp. Ixx-Ixxiv. On variations in the
Evangelists, trans. D. M. Barton (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), p. 27, n. 96. ~rrectlon of the Hebrew and the targums in the words of Jesus, see T. W. Manson,
100. Cf. the position of Samuel Schultz, "Markus und das Alte Testament," Zeit- The Old Testament in the Teaching of Jesus," esp. pp. 314 ff.
schrift Jur Theologie und Kirche, 58 (1961), 184-97, who thinks that Mark has a canon 103. E. g. Mark 7:6 f.; 7:10; 10:6 f.
within the canon of the Old Testament and does not regard the corpus of scriptures 104. As seems to be the case in Mark 7:6 f.
per se as authoritative. 105. Suhl's work is fundamentally concerned with this question. Cf. Hugh Ander-
son's essay on Mark's use of the Old Testament in this volume.
however, has sought to show that Mark's intention in appropriating the other Gospels. Furthermore, it is consonant with the kerygmatic
the Scriptures is only to show the Schriftgemiissheit of events in Jesus' character of Mark's Gospel, which concentrates on the saving event
ministry and that it is therefore wrong to impute to him a view of and person, eschewing any broader historical interest, in essential
salvation history and a scheme of prophecy and fulfillment that is correspondence with the primitive kerygma. In emphasizing the
really derived from Matthew and Luke. Suhl's position is well kerygmatic character of Mark as compared with Matthew and
taken in so far as he seeks to differentiate Mark from the much Luke, Suhl is surely right, whether one refers "kerygma" here to
more pointed use of the Old Testament and Old Testament themes the primitive kerygma of the apostolic preaching (Dodd) or to the
in the other Gospels. Nevertheless, his case is somewhat distorted Hellenistic kerygma of the Gentile-oriented church. Mark's total
by dependence on Willi ManGen's view of Mark's Gospel as evan- theological interest appears to be in accord with his use of the
gelical proclamation decisively conditioned by the expectation of Old Testament.
the imminent Parousia of Jesus in Galilee. l06 The denial that To what extent Mark preserves an accurate picture of. Jesus'
Mark is interested in prophecy and fulfillment is tied to a denial attitude toward, and use of, the Old Testament is a good question.
that Mark is interested in salvation history. Perhaps Mark does ~ong-stan~ing conceptions of Jesus' most fundamental insights
not have the historical sensibilities of Luke. Yet it is scarcely pos- mto the wIll of God rest largely upon the assumption that Jesus
sible that his work does not embody the more primitive Christian ~ctual1YrSpoke as Mark reports him to have spoken, for example,
idea that the kerygma as presently announced fulfills the past l~ chapters : an~ 10. Some recent research has made this assump-
prophetic Scriptures (I Cor. 15:3 ff.), and scarcely credible that tIOn appear mvahd, however, precisely insofar as it has emphasized
the primitive references to the Scriptures (e. g. in I Cor. 15:3 ff.) Mark's kerygmatic interest in contradistinction to any historical
have no specific Scripture prophecies in view, but express only the interest. 107 Such a state of affairs is at least superficially supported
community's faith in the Schriftgemiissheit of the salvation events. by the septuagintal flavor of Mark's Old Testament. Yet on the
Mark's Gospel begins with an Old Testament quotation whose other hand one may cite the affinity of Jesus' free use and inter-
most obvious significance is to indicate the fulfillment of prophecy, pretation of the Old Testament in Mark with what appears to be
a motif which occurs relatively seldom, but nevertheless explicitly a similar stance in the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, the authori-
(9:11-13; cf. 12:10 ff.). Suhl's position must be regarded as an over- tative posture of the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is even
statement of a valid insight, namely, that Mark's view of the Old more pron~u~ced than ~n Mark's Gospel. So even if the kerygmatic,
Testament is much less refined and programmatically formulated and Hellemstlc or GentIle character of Mark's Gospel is emphasized
than that of his successors. and his historical interests minimized, it is still not too much to
Although Mark (through his introductory quotation and his t~nk ~hat he conveys the spirit of the. historical Jesus, particularly
appropriation ofa traditional passion narrative replete with Old hIS attitude toward the Old Testament law. 108
Testament references or allusions) reflects the primitive Christian
idea that the event of Jesus' coming is the fulfillment of Scripture Matthew
and portrays Jesus as debating about the bearing of Scripture
1
(especially the Law), he does not generally use the Old Testament Matthew 09 generally reproduces Mark's explicit Old Testament
to embellish and interpret the events of Jesus' Galilean ministry quotations. There are four formal Old Testament quotations pe-
as extensively as does Matthew. This relative omission is perhaps
107. This position is characteristic of the work of Suhl and, to a lesser degree of
of a piece with his omission of the teaching tradition we know from ~. '
lOB. This much, at least, is granted by Schulz, p. 197.
106. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redactio,(! History of the Gospel, trans. James 109. There has recently been published extensive work on Matthew's use of the
Boyce et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969). (The English translation is based upon the Old Testament, much of it stimulated by Stendahl's monograph. Aside from Gwidry
1959 German edition.) (n. 102 above), see R. S. McConnell, Law and Prophecy in Matthew's Gospel: The Au-
culiar to Matthew and Luke and twenty peculiar to Matthew. These gelist himself appreciated the exegetical work lying behind the
last represent a variety and mixture of text types. 110 Among these :ormula ~u~tati?ns, but rather understood them pictorially, that
eleven (or twelve) are of particular interest. They are introduced IS, as dep1ctmg m advance events to be fulfilled in Jesus' life and
by special fulfillment formulas, indicating that the events relating ministry. Thus, in his view Matthew the evangelist does not really
to Jesus' life or ministry fulfill Old Testament prophecy, and repre- belong to the school of that name! At least he ignores it in the use
sent unique textual traditions. I I I In The School of St. Matthew of these (~ld Testament quotations. In a more negative vein,
Stendahl paid particular attention to these formula quotations, Gund~y ~eJects Stendahl's whole thesis (along with Lindars's) on
which he likened to the pesher quotations of the Habakkuk Com- the prmc1pal ground that he fails to note the pervasiveness of non-
mentary of Qumran, in developing his thesis regarding the origin sep~uagin~al ~nfluence on all Matthew's quotations except those in
of the First Gospel. Stendahl believes that Matthew originated in which he IS sImply following Mark. Gundry takes the position that
a school or circle of early Christian Old Testament interpretation the apostle Matthew is responsible for the present text-forms. 114 In
analogous to that of Qumran. The interpretation of the special the new preface (Fortress edition, pp. vi-ix) of his work, however,
formula quotations in Matthew's school accounts for their special Stendahl gu~rdedly reiterates his view that the formula quotations
form, just as the Qumran pesher activity accounts for aberrant Old are ~he ambIance of the evangelist and in their present text-form
Testament text-forms. Moreover, the formula quotations in proVIde a key to understanding Matthew's Gospel. Stendahl is, in
Matthew show Semitic influence, whereas the other Old Testament fact, responding specifically to Strecker, 115 yet in effect he responds
quotations in Matthew are predominantly septuagintal. l12 also. to the criticism of Lindars. Although Stendahl has not yet
Stendahl's thesis has proved stimulating, not only for Matthean rephed to Gundry's attack, he promises a detailed analysis of the
studies, but also for attempts to understand the use of the Old latter's book in a forthcoming issue of Biblica. So the debate over
Testament in primitive Christianity. For example, Lindars's work Matt~ew's specia~ quotations continues. That it is not a merely
on the apologetic use of the Old Testament in the early church techmcal matter IS clear enough, for at stake is the problem of
was inspired largely by Stendahl's research. Nevertheless, his posi- Matthean origins and therefore Matthean interpretation.
tion has met with criticism as well as assent. 113 Lindars, although In view of the unsettled state of research, is it possible to char-
finding his research stimulating, does not believe that the evan- acterize Matthew's use of the Old Testament with any felicity?
Probably so, for despite debated issues, major aspects of his use of
thOTity and Use of the Old Testament in the Gospel of St. Matthew, Theologishe Disserta-
tionen, no. 2 (Basel: Reinhardt, 1969), and W. Rothfuchs, Die Erjullungs{,itate des the Old Testament stand out clearly. Moreover, even scholars
Matthiius-Evangeliums: Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung, Beitrage zum Wissenschaft who,. for example, de~y that Matthew is a "Jewish gospel" agree
vom Alten und Neuen Testament, ser. 5, no. 8 (Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1969); also
earlier G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford:
that It at least embodIes elements of a Jewish-Christian tradition
Clarendon, 1946), passim. while those who regard it as Jewish-Christian often grant that i~
110. Ibid., pp. 148 f. was composed in a Hellenistic environment. 116
111. The formula quotations are 1:23; 2:6, 15, 18, 23; 4:14f.; 8:17; 12:18-21;
13:35; 21 :5; 27:9 f. by Stendahl's accounting, pp. 97-127. Matt. 3:3 is also introduced 114. See pp. 181 ff. While Gundry's labors in collecting and sorting out the Old
by the peculiar formula, but has synoptic parallels. Testament textual materials relating to Matthew have won critical- approval the
112. Gundry, however, criticizes Stendahl for ignoring the nonseptuagintal ele- same cannot be said for his own position. See, for example the review by Lindars
ments in other Matthew quotations (pp. 157 f.). In his view only the parallels to :!our?alof !"heological Studies, n;s. 20 (1969),-282-84. It has bee~ observed that Gundry'~
Mark's formal quotations should be characterized as septuagintal. conSIderation of ~ld ~estament allusions as well as quotations has gi~en rise to the
113. Lindars, pp. 259 ff. Note also Bertil Gartner's far-reaching criticisms, particu- theory of pe~vasIv~ mIxed text-forms, but that the nature of the possible allusions
larly of Stendahl's attempt to explain the Matthean quotations on the basis of Qumran, scarcely admIts of mference about text-forms.
in "The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew," S. T.,8 (1954), 115. Strecker, Der. 1!'eg der Ge:echtigkeit: Untersuchungen {,ur Theologie des Matthiius,
1-24. Stendahl opens the preface of the Fortress edition of his work with a candid Forschunge~ ~ur Rehgion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, no. 82;
acknowledgment of the weight of such criticisms, indicates some reservation of his 2nd ed.(Gottmgen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). _
own about the Matthean school hypothesis, and avers that the principal jUstification .. 116. N?~e Stendahl's preface to the new Fortress edition of his work, pp. viii, n. 3;
of the study was and is the analysis of the Old Testament text in the Gospel. xu, n. 1; XUI. Stendahl has sympathy with- Davies's position that Matthew is a response
--~-~-------.---~---~------------
Matthew's use of the Old Testament is a problem with at least supported by Scripture, but the Scripture quotation seems to lift
two foci. First, and more generally, how does Matthew relate the out and underline principal points of each pericope: "A virgin
Old Testament to his account of Jesus' ministry? Second, what is shall conceive ... "; Christ is to be born in Bethlehem; the Son of
the Matthean position toward the Law? The second question is God is called out of Egypt; and so on. That all of these events hap-
not really separable from the first, but since we are primarily inter- pen according to prophecy and not fortuitously means, of course,
ested in the use and functioning of the Old Testament we shall that they are ordained of God and, moreover, that they constitute
concentrate upon the first and deal with the second only insofar as an extension of the holy history into the period of Jesus' life and
it impinges upon it. As was the case with Paul, a thorough pursuit ministry. That this last is not a purely Lucan idea (Conzelmann)
of the question of the Law would entail a treatment of the total would seem to be indicated by the opening genealogy, through
theological perspective of the author. 117 which the continuity of the New with the Old is assured.
Matthew takes up most of the Marcan Old Testament quotations When Matthew passes from the birth narrative to the account
and thus apparently endorses them. Over and beyond this he has ofJesus , ministry, he picks up and rearranges the Marean quotation
about two dozen formal quotations, four of which he shares with of Malachi and Isaiah which introduces the Baptist narrative,
Luke and ten or eleven of which fall into the category of the correcting Mark's erroneous ascription of the whole passage to
Matthean formula quotations. Whatever their iorigins, these last Isaiah. There follows the Q narrative of the temptation of Jesus,
seem most typical of Matthew. The occurrence of five of these already replete with Old Testament themes and allusions (4:1-11).
special quotations in Matthew's distinctive birth narrative, where Then begins Jesus' public ministry in Galilee, introduced by Mark
they follow hard on the heels of the Matthean genealogy, tends to (1:21) with a simple transitional statement of place, but by Matthew
confirm this judgment. Where Matthew constructs his own nar- with an extensive formula quotation (4:15-17), which establishes
rative episodes in relative independence (although he probably the Galilean locus of Jesus' ministry as the fulfillment of Isaiah's
knew an earlier tradition) his historical narration stands in closest prophecy. One hesitates to attribute to Matthew's deliberate inten-
relation to Old Testament testimonies. 118 tion what may be merely the result of chance, but the remainder
The events are portrayed as the fulfillment of the prophetic of the formula quotations are distributed among various important
words of Scripture. Naturally, not every detail of the narrative is phases or aspects of Jesus' ministry: his healings (8: 17); his self-
concealment (12:18-21); his parables (13:35); the preparation for
to Jamnian Judaism. Yet he doubts that "the influence of Palestinian Judaism on the
his entry into Jerusalem (21:5); Judas' fate (27:9 f.). The formula
Gospel of Matthew can ... be as direct as Davies's study [The Setting oj the Sermon on also occurs to introduce the famous Isaiah passage (40:3) used in
the Mount] presupposes" (p. xii, n. 1). On the other hand, scholars such as Strecker and connection with the appearance of the Baptist (3:3), although in
Wolfgang Trilling, Das Wahre Israel: Studien l;ur Theologie des Matthiius-Evangeliums,
Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments, no. 10; 3rd ed. (Munich: Kosel, 1964), this instance
/
there is a Marcan parallel. Rather striking, however,
who regard Matthew as the product of a church fully separated from Judaism, grant is the relative scarcity of distinctly Matthean quotations with the
the Jewishness of much of Matthew's tradition. In fact, the distinction between the
viewpoint of this tradition and that of the final redaction is the basis of their positions. fulfillment formula in the passion narrative (cf. 27:9 f.), where it
117. H. Freiherr von Campenhausen'discusses the use of the Old Testament in might have been expected to appear more often in connection
Paul and Matthew in relation to the question of Law and Gospel: Die Entstehung der
christlichenBibel, Beitriige zur historischen Theologie, no. 39 (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1968),
with Jesus' death.
pp. 16 ff., 32 ff.. Matthew very deliberately introduces his Gospel narrative with
118. On the Matthean infancy narratives and particularly their use of the Old extensive references to the Old Testament. In general these Old
_Testament, see Stendahl; "Quis et unde? An Analysis of Mt 1-2," Judentum, Urchris-
tenturn, Kirche: Festschrift jilr Joachim Jeremias, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die neu- Testament references extend and refine the common early Christian
testamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 26; 2nd ed. (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), pp. 94-105; idea that the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Scriptures, but in the
Strecker, pp. 51-63; and especially W. Barnes Tatum, "The Matthean Infancy Stories:
Their Form, Structure, and Relation to the Theology of the Evangelist" (Ph.D. diss., precise sense that the events of Jesus' life and ministry-particu-
Duke University, 1966), esp. pp. 83-85 ff., 99. larly its beginnings-are prophesied therein. Thus he extends the
familiar motif of Jesus as the one announced by Scripture, a motif not to the Law, but to Christ. One can certainly not hide behind
already present in Mark, but, interestingly enough, absent from any legalism in order to protect himself from the hard demands of
Q.11.9 God's will (cf. 3:7-10) promulgated definitively by Jesus. Matthew
The high regard for the Old Testament which Matthew mani- teaches a Christianity that is discipleship, following Christ, the
fests in his portrayal of Jesus is reflected also in his attitude toward way of righteousness (Strecker), to a community with deep roots
the law. 120 Probably Matthew's handling of this issue places him in its Jewish past (Stendahl, Davies, von Campenhausen, et ai.),
in a Jewish-Christian milieu. 121 But Matthew's exact attitude probably one in which these roots have not been completely
toward the Old Testament, and particularly the Law, is not always broken. Yet in principle Matthew's position makes such a break
easy to deduce, since he appropriates traditions embodying varying inevitable, for in his view adherence to the commandment as com-
viewpoints. Yet it may be inferred from the content and structure mandment is no longer the fundamental organizing principle and
of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus stands over and above the ground of inspiration or exhortation, but loyalty and obedience to
Law, the Old Testament Torah per se, not just its traditional in- Christ (7:24-27; 11:25-30; 28:18-20). On the other hand, this
terpretation. This is particularly clear from the antitheses. 122 loyalty is itself defined by an understanding of obedience or right-
Moreover, Matthew keeps the Marcan instances in which Jesus eousness which is intelligible only against an Old Testament and
breaks the sabbath or purification commandments, although he Jewish background.
tends to soften them. 123 While he also transmits the strict or con-
servative line, attributed to Jesus, on the keeping of the Law Luke
(5:17-20; see also 23:3), he tempers this position with the repeated
The Old Testament quotations, references, and allusions in
quotation of Hos. 6:6, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice" (Matt.
Luke's Gospel are concentrated largely in the introduction (the
9:13; 12:7), and sharply distinguishes between the trivial and the
nativity and Jesus' preaching in Nazareth), and in the Passion and
weightier matters of the Law (23:23). Yet in the same breath in
Resurrection accounts. In Acts they are most frequent in the initial
which he makes that distinction he also insists upon observance.
section dealing with the Jerusalem church (chaps. 1-7) and at the
The whole Law, however, "hangs" upon the double command-
end (28:23 fr.). Moreover, they tend to fall in the speeches. The
ment of love of God and love of neighbor (22:40), which provides
similar tendency in the Gospel for Old Testament quotations to
the hermeneutical fulcrum for the interpretation of the individual
appear on Jesus' ]ips is due mainly to the precedents established
commandments. Yet the allegiance which Matthew commends is
by Mark and Q. Nevertheless, it is significant that in his initial
119. Trilling sees as the peculiarly Matthean contribution in the appropriation of sermon at Nazareth (cf. 4:18 f.) and in his final utte~ance on the
the Old Testament the evangelist's interpretation of the Christian church, rather than cross (23:46) Jesus quotes the Old Testament, since both instances
the synagogue, as the true continuation of the Old Testament people of God, "The
True Israel." On the absence of christological proof from prophecy from Q, see von are unique with Luke. Surely it is also not a happenstance that
Campenhausen, p. 13, n. 32; but Matt. 11 :4-6/ Luke 7:22 f., with obvious references the Risen Jesus interprets the Scriptures to his disciples in Luke
to Isaiah (29:18 f.; 35:5 f.; 61:1), seems to constitute an exception. alone (24:27, 32, 44 fr.). .
120. Note especially Gerhard Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law,"
in Gunther Bornkamm, Barth, and H.]. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, It is usually said that Luke's Bible is the Septuagint, and the pre-
trans. P. Scott (London: SCM, 1963), pp. 58, 164: "The Law of Moses is for him dominance of quotations from the Septuagint is real. Luke's imita-
unquestionably the law of God, and also for the church" (p. 158). Cf. also Trilling,
pp. 165-224, and Reinhart Hummel, Die Auseinanderset;:.ung ;:.wischen Kirche und Judentum tion of the style of the Septuagint has also been noted. 124 Recently,
in Matthiiusevangelium, Beitrlige zur evangelischen Theologie, no. 33; 2nd ed. (Munich: however, Traugott Holtz has advanced the thesis that only Luke's
Kaiser, 1966), pp. 34-75.
121. So von Campenhausen, p. 22. quotations from Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalms are
122. Ibid., pp. 18 f. taken directly from the Septuagint; and that his other Old Testa-
123. Ibid., pp. 20 f. Cf. Bornkamm, Barth, and Held, pp. 24 f., on Matthew's
strict interpretation of the law. 124. Kiimmel, pp. 95, 98, 123.
ment quotations, if not simply drawn from Mark, follow the text- that Christ's coming and the coming of the Spirit in the church
forms of primitive Christian testimonia. 125 While Holtz's theory are the fulfillment of prophetic Scripture (see, for example, Acts 2).
will bear further critical scrutiny, its correspondence with the Probably these speeches embody primitive tradition, but to the
textual evidence of Luke-Acts is striking. Already Lindars and degree that they are Luke's own composition they attest his con-
de Waard have drawn attention to the primitive, traditional char- viction that God's ancient word has found its fulfillment in Christ
acter of the Old Testament testimonia in some of the Acts speeches. and his church. In the second place, there are the initial chapters
Moreover, it is a real question whether at this stage in the develop- of the Gospel, including the birth narratives and Jesus' preaching
ment of early Christianity (the latter part of the first century) in Nazareth, which are full of Old Testament allusions and quota-
authors would have had easy access to the entire Old Testament- tions. It will be instructive to look briefly at these opening chap-
a considerable library-particularly if they belonged to churches ters, since they afford an interesting comparison with Matthew's. 127
which had already separated from the synagogue. Anyone who reads the Lucan birth narrative is immediately
As a Gentile Christian in the Pauline sphere of influence, Luke struck by its style and tone, which is deliberately contrived to
doubtless belonged to such a separated Christian church. Luke evoke the narra!ives of the Old Testament. Also the great hymns
looks back on the period of most intense struggle with (and within) or canticles uttered by the angel Gabriel, Mary, Zechariah, and
Judaism over the new Christian Gospel and its interpretation. For Simeon are reminiscent of hymns and Psalms of the Old Testament.
him the controversy over the law within Christianity-Luke These similarities have, of course, often been noted by commen-
adumbrates the term in referring to XPLCTTLaVOL-Was a matter of tators. The whole narration is clearly designed to anchor the birth
historical interest except insofar as it had left wounds which still of Jesus the Christ in the faith and piety of Israel, in the Hebrew
needed to be healed. Yet his feeling for the continuity between Scriptures, and thus in the plan and purpose of God. Generally
Israel and the church was real and deep. Although he was scarcely its function is not unlike that of the Matthean birth narrative. On
the originator of the concept of salvation-history,126 he brought the other hand, the formal contrast is considerable. Whereas
it to clear articulation in his two-part narrative which is so explic- Matthew accomplishes his purpose by punctuating his narrative
itly and consciously rooted in the Scriptures of Israel. The discus- with Old Testament testimonies-indeed, they may provide the
sion of the finer points of Conzelmann's comprehensive portrayal framework of his account-Luke has not a single formal Old
of Lucan theology does not need to be taken up here. While we Testament quotation. The difference is rather typical of the Gospels,
may reserve judgment on the precise periodization of salvation- for Matthew continues to introduce such Old Testament testimony
history in Luke's own intention, the main lines of Conzelmann's on a much larger scale than Luke.
Lucan interpretation surely point us in the right direction. This is But surely Luke is just as much interested in portraying Jesus as
particularly so in regard to the place and importance of Israel, fulfilling the Scriptures. 128 This intention becomes quite explicit
and concomitantly of Israel's Scriptures, in Luke's overall con- in the famous scene in the Nazareth synagogue (4:16-30) where
ception. Jesus begins his public ministry. Luke has apparently taken the
The prominence of the Old Testament at two crucial points in
127. On Luke's birth narratives, seeW. Barnes Tatum, "The Epoch of Israel:
Luke's work is obvious. First of all, the Acts speeches emphasize Luke i-ii and the Theological Plan of Luke-Acts," NTS, 13 (1966-1967), 184-95,
who cites the recent literature fully. Tatum argues persuasively that "St. Luke uses
125. Untersuchungen iiber die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas, Texte und Unter- the birth stories to characterize that. period in salvation-history before the ministry of
suchungen, no. 104 (Berlin: Akademie-Verl~g, 1968)- I. have not. been. able to see the Jesus as the Epoch of Israel" (pp. 190-93 f.). .
Bonn dissertation of M. Rese, Alttestamentllche MotIVe In deT Chrlstologle Lukas (Bonn, 128. Paul Schubert, "The Structure and Significance of Luke 24," Neutestamentliche
1965); cf. the brief summary in Rohde, pp. 217-19. . ., . StudienjiirRudolj Buttmann, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fii: die neutestamentliche Wissen-
126. Cf. Ulrich Wilckens, "Interpreting Luke-Acts in a PerlOd o.f EXlSt:ntlahst schaft, no. 21; 2nd ed. (Berlin: Tiipelmann, 1957), pp. 165-86, has underlined the
Theology," Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck andJ. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abmgdon, central place of Old Testament (but not only Old Testament) proof from prophecy
1966), pp. 60-83, esp. 72 ff. in Luke's theology.
Marcan account of Jesus' preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth

John
(Mark 6:1-6), modified it and enlarged it greatly to suit his own
ends, and introduced it at the opening of the ministry. Since Luke For John the question of the Old Testament as Law is a dead
has acted so deliberately, we are justified in assuming that he issue, reflected only occasionally in passages such as 1:17, where
thereby reveals his own outlook and viewpoint. Thus it would the author seems to be pointing to successive epochs if not setting
seem he takes this occasion to have Jesus announce the fulfillment up a deliberate antithesis. References to "your law" in Jesus' de-
of Isaiah's prophecy (61:1-2) in his own public activity (Luke bate with the Jews (8:17; 10:34) indicate that for John's church,
4:18-21). The words of Isaiah in the mouth of Jesus answer to the and in John'S theological perspective, the Law belongs to the
fulfilled expectation which is expressed in the joyous hymns of the Jews. And while salvation may be "of the Jews" (4:22), it is actu-
infancy narrative. These hymns reveal the fervid expectancy which ally "of them" and no longer "in them." For the Jews in John's
for Luke characterizes the time of Israel, the first epoch in the Gospel represent the world's rejection of Jesus. 131
history of salvation. The dis~iples' obedience is no longer defined, even in concrete
Yet the account does not simply end with Jesus' own proclama- or practical inst~nces, in terms of the Old Testament law. Rather
tion of himself as the fulfillment of prophecy. Another charac- they are given a new commandment, the love commandment, by
teristic Lucan motif finds expression as in response to Jesus' sharp Jesus (13:34 f.). Yet in some sense the validity of the law is acknowl-
retort (vv. 23 ff.), anticipating his rejection by Israel and accept- edged in just those instances in which it is referred to as "your
ance by Gentiles-a retort which is really unjustified in the con- law," and Nicodemus' appeal to the law in 7:51 is clearly set in a
text 129-his fellow townsmen turn violently against him (vv. positive light by the evangelist. Moreover, John holds that Moses
28-30). At this point Jesus simply departs to Capernaum (and himself wrote about Jesus in the law (1:45; 5:46). Very likely this
Luke takes up the Marcan account). This account may make ambiguity toward the law reflects the history of the Johannine
little sense historically, but it is a perfect expression of Luke's own Christianity's conflict with the synagogue, in which it has been
view that the Gospel is offered first to Jews, preserving the con- alienated from Judaism, all the while appealing to the Jewish Law
tinuity of salvation history, and, when rejected by them, to Gen- in its own defense. 132
tiles. This pattern emerges again and again in Acts and provides Paradoxically, John evinces a more positive attitude to the
the note onwhich the entire narrative concludes (28:23-28). Scriptures than to the Law per se (or to the Scriptures considered
Thus Luke 4:16-30 affords an excellent illustration of Luke's as Law). This comes about in two ways, which we shall examine
attitude both toward the Scriptures and toward Judaism. Jesus' briefly. First, John appropriates the Old Testament testimony tra-
coming is the fulfillment of Scripture. At the same time, his rejec- dition of primitive Christianity reflected elsewhere in the New
tion by Israel-a historical fact in Luke's own time-is anticipated
at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. Thus the continuity of cant history which he rehearses in Acts 7 (see esp. 7:51-53). While Luke obviously
employs traditional material, D. C. Arichea, "A Critical Analysis of the Stephen
redemptive history is maintained both in the appropriation of the Speech in the Acts of the Apostles" (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1965), is doubtless
Scriptures and in the conviction that the rupture between syna- correct in maintaining that the most fruitful approach to the speech relates it to Luke's
gogue and church is the result of the peculiar hostility of a particular purpose (pp. 237 if.).
131. Cf. von Campeni1.ausen, p. 62, and especially the discussion of Bultmann,
generation of Jews. 130 Theology oj the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribner's, 1953),
2: 26-32.
129. By mentioning Capernaum (v. 23) Luke implies that Jesus' public minis.try 132. For an analysis of crucial aspects of the Fourth Gospel as the direct or indirect
had already previously commenced. Probably this incongruity is Luke's own, reve~lm? expression of this conflict, see J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel
his awareness of having transposed the whole incident (cf. vv. 31 if.), and not an mdl- (New York: Harper & Row, 1968). On the ambivalence of the relationship of the
cation of reliance upon an earlier source (whose mention of Jesus' activity at Caper- law to Jesus in John, see Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the
naum Luke would have then suppressed). . . . . Johannine Christology, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, no. 14 (Leiden: Brill,
130. Yet this obduracy is not without precedent, but In Luke's view has a s1gIlifi- 1967), pp. 288 ff.
Testament. 133 Second, John sets his Gospel against the background 19:28 f.), and John makes very clear the Christian conviction that
of Old Testament Judaism. Old Testament figures, Old Testament the Scriptures point to Christ (1:45; 5:39; 5:46 f.). Major events
places, Old Testament symbols and institutions are woven into its of Jesus' career are said to have occurred in fulfillment of Scripture.
very fabric, sometimes as the antitypes of John's Jesus, but not Usually the specific Scripture is cited (e.g. 2:17; cf. vs. 22; 12:14-
always SO.134 16), but in the case of the Resurrection it is not (20:9). The apolo-
The variety of text-forms in John's Old Testament 13 5 testimonia getic of response, a major motif of the early Christian testimony
probably means that they have been derived from traditional tradition, occurs also in John (12:39 f.).136 Moreover, the Johan-
sources. Particularly noteworthy are the Passion testimonies of nine use of these and.· other testimonies may reflect an intimate
John. In several instances John has an explicit testimony that is acquaintance with their traditional use. 13 7 Major Old Testament
only suggested in Mark (cf. Mark 15:24; 15:36; and John 19:24; figures are said to have written about Jesus (Moses in 5:46 f.) and
133. M. Dibelius, "Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des to have seen his day (Abraham in 8:56) or his glory (Isaiah in
Petrus- und des Johannes-Evangelium," in BotschaJt und Geschichte: Gesammelte AuJsiitze 12:38). Although the Scripture passages cited may be drawn
(Tiibingen: Mohr, 1953), 1: 221-47, drew attention to the traditional·character of
the Johannine Old Testament quotations in the Passion narrative. Cf. Lindars, New largely from the testimony tradition of early Christianity, probably
Testament Apologetic, pp. 265-72, on the traditional character of the formula quota- the explicit statements regarding the remembering of the Scriptures
tions related to the Passion, as well as their apologetic tendency. Very recently
Rothfuchs has observed that these quotations deal with and interpret the enemies of (e.g. 2:17, 22) and the references to Moses, Abraham and Isaiah
Jesus and their actiuns (pp. 170 if.). are to be ascribed to the fertile and creative mind of the author.
John's explicit quotations are predominantly from the Prophets (cf. 12:15, 38,40; Significant as such instances of the use of the Old Testament as
19:37 f.) and the Psalms (2:17; 13:18; 15:25; 19:24,28 f., 36).
134. The Old Testament matrix of Johannine thought is frequently pointed out cited above may be, both in showing John's debt to tradition and
by E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey (London: Faber and Faber, 1947). his originality, they are of secondary importance in comparison
A good summary treatment of this phenomenon has been set forth by C. K. Barrett,
"The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," Journal oj Theological Studies, 48 (1947), with the way in which the movement and framework of the Gospel
155-69. Much more extensive is Franc;ois Marie Braun, Jean Ie TMologien: Les grandes are set against a Jewish and Old Testament background. The pro-
traditions d'Israiil et ['accord des Ecritures selon Ie Quatri~me Evangile, Etudes Bibliques
(Paris: Gabalda, 1964), the second volume of Braun's trilogy on the Fourth Gospel. logue's (1:1-18) depiction of the role of the Logos (Word) in crea-
Borgen, p. 27, n. 1, cites major contributions to the question of John's use of the Old tion-note the light-darkness motif-is reminiscent of the Genesis
Testament, of which he is generally critical for their failure to take account of con-
temporary Jewish midrashic exposition. creation story, where also "in the beginning" God speaks and
Aileen Guilding in an elaborate and erudite study, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish separates light from darkness. The subsequent account of John
Worship: A Study of the Relation oj St. John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), attempts to account for John's Old Testament sub-
the Baptist and the calling of the disciples (1:19-51) is replete with
structure by understanding the Gospel as a series of meditations upon a triennial cycle Old Testament references and allusions. The very purpose of
of Old Testament lections. Her conclusions have not, however, been widely accepted; John's baptism is the revelation of Jesus (as the Christ) to Israel
cf. Ernst Haenchen, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 86 (1961), 670-72; Leon Morris,
The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964); and D. Moody (v. 32). In this episode a whole series of Old Testament or tradi-
Smith, Jr., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann's Literary Theory, tional Jewish titles are ascribed to Jesus: Lamb of God (\Iv. 29-36),
Yale Publications in Religion, no. 10 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965),
pp.102-5. Son of God (v. 34), Rabbi (v. 38), Messiah (v. 41), the one "of
135. Pointed out by Charle'!i Goodwin, "How Did John Treat His Sources?", whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote," the King
JBL, 73 (1954), 61-75, who suggests that John may cite from memory (p. 73). Mo~e
recent research such as Lindars's and Edwin D. Freed's has, however, made thIS ofIsrael (v. 49), and the Son of man (v. 51). The positive relation of
originally plausible suggestion appear less likely. Freed proposes a background of the Jesus to the Old Testament tradition is affirmed, despite-or per-
Old Testament quotations analogous to Stendahl's school of St. Matthew (p. 130). haps because of-the polarity between Jesus and Moses described
Thus his conclusion that John probably did not use written testimonia (p. 128) does
not deny John'S dependence on tradition in the broader sense. Freed's research sug- in 1:17.
gests that at points John's use of the Old Testament is in contact wit? the Hebrew Following this lengthy introduction Jesus proceeds to turn the
original or the Targums, although his literal agreements are mostly wlth. the ~eptu
agint. A Semitic background for some of John's Old Testament quotauons IS also 136. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, pp. 18, 159-61.
proposed by Borgen, esp. pp. 64 f. 137. Ibid., pp. 265 if.
D. MOODY SMITH, JR. THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW 57
56
water intended for use in Jewish rites of purification into the wine the language and thought of certain Old Testament traditions or
symbolic of his own divine revelation (2:1-11). Mter this he books, particularly Isaiah, through John's Gospel. 140
cleanses the temple (2:13-22), but indicates that he will ultimately In a variety of ways John seems the most alttestamentlich of New
replace it (2: 19 ff.; cf. 4:21 ff.)! There follows an encounter with Testament books. This is not, however, the result of a simple idea
Nicodemus, the representative of main-line Judaism (3:1-21), of continuity between the Old Testament, the Judaism of Jesus' or
after which Jesus confronts the Samaritan woman (4:1-42), who John's day, and the Gospel. In fact, John sets up the sharpest
epitomizes Jewish apostasy. The miracle at Bethzatha Pool \5:1-9) antithesis between the Old and the New that is to be found in the
becomes the occasion for Jews to persecute Jesus for working on New Testament. One has the impression that the New-Jesus
the Sabbath and thus violating Old Testament law. This in turn Christ as God's word, as Light, Truth and Life-is not in fact
leads to a christological discussion in which Jesus' work is compared rightly known on the basis of a prior understanding of the Old
with the Father's. Chapter 6, which finds Jesus suddenly in Galilee, Testament or the institutions of Judaism. Rather, faith in Jesus,
continues much the same level of christological discussion, although which is the one indispensable thing in John's view, opens up the
in a different theological as well as geographical setting. Here the possibility for a proper understanding of the Scriptures as pointing
Exodus tradition is invoked as Jesus and his interlocutors dis- to him, and of the institutions of Judaism as finding fulfillment in
cuss the real meaning of Exod. 16:4 (cf. Ps. 78:24, etc.): Who or him. Such an understanding ought perhaps to have been present
what is the true bread from heaven?138 Mter the withdrawal of in Jesus' own contemporaries, but in fact it was not (5:39 f.; 5:46 f.).
many of his disciples at the end of this episode, Jesus goes again to On the contrary, a whole series of "Itestimonies" is brought forth
Jerusalem, where a crucial conflict with the Jewish officialdom by the Jews in order to disprove Jesus' claims (e. g. 7:42, 52; 12:34).
takes place (chaps. 7, 8). And one could trace this thread through These, however, represent the unenlightened reading of the Scrip-
the remainder of Jesus' public ministry, for it is a major motif of tures that is bound to err because it does not recognize and acknowl-
the J ohannine framework. edge in Jesus the source of true light and life. Thus even Nicodemus
This framework itself is marked by repeated appearances of seems farther from the truth initially than the Samaritan woman,
Jesus in Jerusalem for the Jewish feasts (2:13, 23; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2, 37, despite his rabbinic learning, and those who reject Jesus most
etc.). There are also other instances in which events or symbols vehemently are the learned representatives of Jewish officialdom
from the Old Testament are used by Jesus in a way that might be (7:45-52; 11:45-53).
described as typological, for example, the comparison of Jesus' In light of this state of affairs, Jesus' turning away from "the
crucifixion to Moses' lifting up the serpent in the wilderness Jews" to "his own," already adumbrated in 1:11 f., becomes intel-
(3:14 f.).139 Further, it may be possible to trace the influence of ligible. Yet after Jesus turns from the Jews, who have become the
representatives of a hostile world, to his own disciples (esp. chaps.
138. Bread From Heaven by Borgen is the most thorough recent discussion of John. 6.
It is, of course, especially valuable for the way in which John's. method. of.dealing ~Ith 13-17, 21), he turns again with them toward the world, sending
the Old Testament is placed over against contemporary Jew~h ho~iletlc~l practice. them into the world as he was sent (3:13; 17:20 ff.; 20:21). The
139. The possibility that the signs of John's Gospel stand ~ an mtentlonal typo-
logical relation to the "sigris" or "signs and wonders" of Moses m the exodus tradition
destiny of Jesus' disciples is a mission to and for the wo:r:-Id. It is,
of the Old Testament has been put forward by Robert H. Smith, ".E.x~us Typolo~y however, a real question whether for Johannine Christianity the
in the Fourth Gospel," ]BL, 81 (1962), 329-42. He reviews and criticIZes the ~arher explicit use of the Old Testament is any longer a necessity for
proposals of J. J. Enz, B. P. W. Stather Hunt, and Harold Sahlin. Whether hIS own
theory is a plausible one is a question that deserves more extended treatme;llt than can missionary preaching and the ordering of church life. The answer
be given here. While I do not find it convincing in detail, a typological relatIOn between depends in part on whether one sees the Fourth Gospel as repre-
Jesus and Moses certainly cannot be dismissed. (See John 1 :17; 6:32 f. and 9:25 f. as
well as 3:14). On the figure of Moses in the Fourth ~OS?el ~ee. also Martyn, pp. 88, sentative of a church still in some positive contact with Judaism or
91 fr.; T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, Studies m Blbhcal Theology, no. 40
(London: SCM, 1963) and especially now the important work of Meeks, The Prophet- 140. F. W. Young, "A Study of the Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel,"
King. Z,eitschriftfiiT die neutestamentliche Wissenschtift,46 (1955),215-33.
as the product of a dialogue that has resulted in alienation, with- introductory formulas indicate that the author regards the text as
out, however, producing the thoroughgoing rejection of the Old God's own speaking. Revelation contains not a single formal cita-
Testament and of creation as divinely ordered that is found in tion, but it is just as full of Old Testament language, phraseology,
Gnosticism. In my view the latter alternative is more probable. If and allusions as Hebrews. 142
so, it may be that Johannine Christianity could come to expression Since so much of Hebrews is biblical exegesis, or at least appli-
apart from its Old Testament basis, as in fact seems to have hap- cation, and since we have rather copious Jewish exegetical materials
pened in the Johannine Epistles, as well as the farewell discourses dating from the contemporary period,. much recent interest has
of the Gospel. While the Gospel is built upon a foundation of Old focused upo,n locating its precise background. While rabbinic
Testament allusion and imagery, especially in chapters 1-12, the methods of exegesis find extensive parallels in Hebrews, 143 much
Epistles, likely the work of another author or authors, may repre- recent investigation has focused upon Philo 144 or Qumran.145
sent a stage of development in which this Jewish, Old Testament Yet neither Qumran nor Philo provides the key to understanding
matrix has been attenuated. It is noteworthy that in the Pastorals, the complex patterns of exegetical discussion in Hebrews, for the
documents of comparable date and Sitz im Leben, there is a similar author was an original thinker and writer, and a Christian as well.
dearth of Old Testament references. Conversely, however, other Although he obviously owes something to the exegetical traditions
later New Testament documents such as Hebrews, Revelation, of early Christianity, the attempt to make Hebrews dependent
and James, not to mention the Apostolic Fathers (see esp. I Clement upon the hypothetical primitive testimony book (Harris) scarcely
and Barnabas), attest that the separation of the church from Juda- succeeds. 146 Actually, it seems that the author of Hebrews was not
ism did not result in the downgrading of the Old Testament. In- greatly dependent upon his Christian predecessors. He appears to
stead, in many ways it paved the way for the adoption of the Old have used a form of the Septuagint for most, if not all, of his thirty-
Testament as a Christian book. In a certain sense it is already that odd Old Testament quotations. 147 Probably the key to Hebrews
for the Fourth Evangelist, and as such indispensable to the presen- does not lie outside the book itself, but is to be found in an analysis
tation of Jesus which he gives us. of the author's use of the Scriptures in the context of his total work.
Despite certain affinities with Philonic exegesis, the basic form
Hebrews and Revelation of the appropriation of the Old Testament in Hebrews is not alle-
This survey of the use of the Old Testament in the New may at
best be suggestive of the main lines and results of relevant research, 1.42. For the following discussion I am largely indebted to excellent seminar papers
(sprmg semester, 1969) of two graduate students in New Testament at Duke: n Denny
and hopefully also of areas needing further study. As such it is White, "The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews," and James S.
necessarily incomplete. We cannot, however, conclude without Aull, "The Use of the Book of Jeremiah in the Apocalypse of John."
143. Richard Reid, "The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews"
mentioning two other New Testament books. Much significant re- (Th.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., 1964), pp. 72-97, esp. 73, 80-97.
search has recently been done on the one; the other has lately been 144. See Sowers (above, n. 30).
145. For example, Hans Kosmala, Hebriier-Essener-Christen: Studien Zur Vorgeschichte
overlooked. These are, respectively, the Epistle to the Hebrews der friichristlichen Verkiindigung, Studia Post-Biblica, no. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959), esp.,
and the Revelation to John. 141 Each makes as much or more use pp. 1-43; cf. S. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam:
Wed. G. van Soest, 1961), pp. 64-70 et passim; also George Howard, "Hebrews and
of the Old Testament as any New Testament document, yet in the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, 10 (1968); 208-16, who attempts
very different ways. Hebrews contains a great number of rather to make the textual evidence of Qumran profitable for the determination of the Old
explicit verbatim scriptural quotations, most of which are attrib- Testament text-form of Hebrews (but cf. n. 147 below).
146. F. C. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures (London: S.P.C.K., 1959); Reid, pp.
uted directly to God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Thus Hebrews' 66-71, also Kistemaker, pp. 91 f. .
147. A recent and very full treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews,
141. One might also find it fruitful to investigate I Peter in this connection, sin:ce Friedrich Schrager, Der Veifasser des Hebriierbriefes als Schriftausleger, Biblische Unter-
the use of the Old Testament in that document appears to bear traces of an earber s~chungen, no. 4 (Reg~nsburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1968), confirms the generally held
tradition (e. g., compare the use of Isaiah in I Pet. 2:6 and Rom. 9:33). Vlew that the author relles upon the Septuagint (see pp. 248 fr., 262-65).
gory, but typology. Although Hebrews has a forerunner in Paul and structure for this argument, but legitimates and guarantees it.
(cf. Romans 4; Galatians 3), the author is certainly the master of For the author of Hebrews regards the Scriptures as nothing less
typology among New Testament writers. There are several impor- than God's word. This is probably why the scriptural quotations
tant typologies in Hebrews: the Moses-Christ typology (3:2 ff.); are so often attributed to God's own speaking, either directly or
the Israel-Church typology (3:7-4:11); the Melchizedek-Christ through Christ and the Spirit. Remarkable by their absence from
typology (chap. 7). They all, however, seem to revolve about the the introductory formulas of Hebrews are the terms 'Ypacpw and
basic typology of the Old and New Covenants. 148 This typology 'Ypacpf], which appear so often in connection with Old Testament
is not only implicit in the entire argument of Hebrews, but becomes quotations elsewhere in the New Testament. For him the Old
quite explicit in 8:8-13, for there the author quotes the famous Testament, while God's word and therefore valid, along with the
new covenant passage of Jer. 31:31-34 in its entirety. Within Jewis~ institutions it establishes, is nevertheless anticipatory, de-
this overall typology, the exegesis of several Psalms plays an impor- mandmg completion. Yet its prophecies may continue to point
tant role. In 2:6-8 Ps. 8:4-6 is adduced to niake the point that to th.e future, even for the Christian, and even its anticipatory
Christ identifies with humanity. In 3:7-11 Ps. 95:7-11 is ad- and Incomplete aspects serve to illumine the perfect revelation
duced· to warn the church by means of the example of Israel's that has come in Christ. 150 Perhaps more than any other figure
apostasy. In 1:13 and 5:6 Ps. 110:1,4 is used to underline Jesus' the unknown author of Hebrews deserves the title of the Old
exaltation. Finally, in 10:5-7 (Ps. 40:6-8) the exact means of Testament theologian of the New.
transition from the Old Covenant into the realm of holiness of the The Old Testament language of the Revelation to John is indi-
New is specified: "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ cated by the bold face type in the Nestle text and even more fully
once for all." 149 The themes of these Psalm quotations are sum- by the marginal notes. Swete counts 278 verses with allusions to
marized in 2:17. the Old Testament or some dependence upon it out of the 404
If one speaks of the purpose of the author of Hebrews in using verses of the book. 151 Yet John never quotes extensively. Not even
the Old Testament, he must distinguish two levels. There was the a full verse from the Old Testament is quoted in its entirety. Never
practical and overall purpose of the letter to encourage and warn does he give any indication that he is quoting, and therefore he
Christians wavering in their faith, perhaps in danger of persecution, has no introductory formulas. Not surprisingly, in view of the
perhaps in greater danger of falling, or falling back, into Judaism allusive character of the author's use of the Scriptures, the Old
because of their general lassitude and disappointment over the Testament text of Revelation presents a difficult problem. J. A.
delay in the Parousia. To this end the Old Testament is sometimes Montgomery is probably correct in thinking that the Old Testa-
applied directly (e. g. 3:7-11; chap. 11). More often, however, the ment material in Revelation comes out of the rich storehouse of
Old Testament is used to develop the theological argument con- the author's memory rather than from a single textual tradition or
cerning the superiority of Jesus, the high priestly mediator of the combination of traditions. 152 Yet recent research has turned up
New Covenant, over the sacrificial system of the Old. (The mes-
siahship of Jesus is simply assumed. What is demonstrated is his 150. See the ~x~ellent statement by C. K. Barrett, "The Eschatology of the Epistle
high priestly function.) The faith conviction that underlies this
if.
to the Hebrews, 1D The Background the New Te~tament and ·its Eschatology: Studies in
Ho~our ate. H. Dodd, ed. W. D. DaVIes and DaVId Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge
argument is the grounds upon which the author of Hebrews UmversIty Press, 1956), p. 392.
1.51. Henry Barc!ay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John: The Greek Text with Intro-
can comfort, exhort, and warn the wavering community which he ductIon, Notes and IndICes, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1911), p. cx!. His count is actu-
addresses. The Old Testament provides not only the framework ally based on the "quotations from the Old Testament" given in the appendix of
B. F. Wescott and F.J. A. Hort, eds., The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge
148. Cf. Sowers, pp. 91 fr. and London:'Macmillan, 1881).
149. This is the discovery of Kistemaker, pp. 96-133, who thinks that the exegesis 152. "The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse," JBL, 45 (1926), 70-80,
of these Psalms determines the structure of Hebrews. esp. 71 f.
some rather striking affinities between the Old Testament references gious philosophy (Philo). (Perhaps Revelation shares with Qumran
in Revelation and the Aramaic Targums. 153 The semitizing char- an emphasis on the future rather than the past or present fulfill-
acter of John's Greek suggests the likelihood of his knowledge of me:Qt of prophecy, whereas the New Testament generally places
targumic tradition. That such tradition might turn up in material greater weight upon the latter aspect.) Second, the author of
drawn from his memory is not at all unlikely. John's method of Revelation expresses himself in a vocabulary and phraseology
using the Old Testament may also explain why he shows relatively drawn from the Old Testament. Here again he represents a kind
little contact with the primitive church's tradition of scriptural of exaggeration of a phenomenon found elsewhere in the New
proof or apologetic. 154 His mind moves independently along new Testament, for it is well known that the Old Testament scriptures,
paths, producing only occasional testimonies from the common particularly in their septuagintal form, served as a rich mine of
tradition (or memory) of the church (see for example Zech. 12:10 f., theological (and other) vocabulary and conceptuality for the early
found in Rev. 1:7 and John 19:37). Christian writers.
Naturally John's reminiscences of the Old Testament are heavily
weighted toward the prophetic side of the canon. References to
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR THE NEW
Isaiah are fairly numerous as one might well expect, since Isaiah
is the prophetic book most frequently quoted in the New Testa- The principal importance of the Old Testament for the New
ment. On the other hand there are numerous allusions to Ezekiel, inheres precisely in the two points just mentioned above. When
Daniel, and Jeremiah-more in Revelation than in other New due account is taken of the historic novelty or uniqueness of the
Testament books. New Testament message and the extent of its orientation toward
It is virtually impossible to discover any purpose behind John's the Hellenistic world, one must still reckon with its deep indebted-
use of the Old Testament distinguishable from his purpose in the ness to Judaism and the Old Testament, both with respect to its
entire work. This is exactly what his way of employing the Old theological language and conceptuality and with respect to its
Testament would lead us to expect. The author's language and prophetic-historical consciousness. 155
thought world is the Old Testament, as he understands it, par- Because of this rootage, which is intrinsic to the Christian mes-
ticularly the prophetic writings. Without them he could not have sage and not merely its historically conditioned husk, the Old
written at all. Thus the document itself is, literally, quite incon- Testament is the indispensable theological-historical background
ceivable apart from the Old Testament. While Revelation is for reading and understanding the New. This does not mean that
unique among New Testament books generally, as well as unique'
155. The importance of the Old Testament for the New, and for the Christian
in its appropriation of the Old Testament, in two respects it is strik- faith, has in recent years been the subject of considerable scholarly theological dis-
ingly typical. First, the prophetic-eschatological dimension of the cussion. Note especially B. W. Anderson, ed., The Old Testament and Christian Faith:
A Theological Discussion (New York: Harper & Row, 1963); Claus Westermann, ed.,
Old Testament is dominant in Revelation. Actually, the predomi- Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, trans. J. L. Mays (Richmond: John Knox, 1963);
nance of allusions to prophetic books is disproportionate. Never- James Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study oj the Two Testaments (New York:
theless, the New Testament is marked by its tendency to read the Harper & Row, 1966); John Bright, The Authority oj the Old Testament (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1967); Daniel Lys, The Meaning oj the Old Testament: An Essay on Herme-
Old Testament as prophecy rather than law (the rabbis) or reli- neutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967); K. H. Miskotte, When The Gods are Silent, trans.
J. W. Doberstein (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament
153. L. P. Trudinger, "Some Observations concerning the Text of the Old Testa- Development oj Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968); Claus
ment in the Book of Revelation," Journal of Theological.Studies, n.s. 17 (1966), 82-88; Westermann, The Old Testament and Jesus Christ, trans. O. Kaste (German ed., 1968;
McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, pp. 97-125. Minneapolis: Augsburg, n.d.); Norbert Lohfink, The Christian Meaning of the Old
154. Cf. the judgment of Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, p. 29: "The Epistle to Testament, trans. R. A. Wilson (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1968); and, especially, Brevard S.
the Hebrews ... is a highly individual study in its own right, so that its scriptural Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), an important
interpretation witnesses more to the outlook of the author than to a previous apologetic programmatic statement. See also the summation of earlier literature by Roland E.
tradition. The Book of Revelation, which also contains a wealth of scriptural quota- Murphy, "The Relationship Between the Testaments," CBQ, 26 (1964), 349-59,
tions, is so poetical in its approach ... that it could be used only rarely for confirmatory and his "Christian Understanding of the Old Testament," Theology Digest, 18 (1970),
evidence of conclusions drawn from other parts of the New Testament." 321-32.
the contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic milieu can be left out of Perhaps even more important than this traditional-historical
account, however, because it is only in and through that milieu connection of the Old Testament and the New, with all its theo-
that the Old Testament was read by the early Christians, including logical implications, is their common language and conceptuality.
the New Testament writers. It does mean that those who first By this is not meant merely common vocabulary and a common
brought the Christian message to theological articulation-even in treasury of ideas, although those are present and significant.
most primitive form-saw that message as the culmination of the Rather, there exists a common way of talking and thinking about
saga of Israel's history and faith, and therefore of Scripture. Fur- Man and God in their confrontation and interaction. Man can
thermore, New Testament writers and theologians from Paul to only be understood and defined over against God. Conversely
Luke, John, and the author of Hebrews carried out their work in God -and talk about God can only have significance in so far as
conscious continuation of this perspective, in different ways elabo- they bear upon man; not man in the abstract, but man as a con-
rating it or enlarging upon it. Thus Luke sees the relationship crete historical being whose life is characterized by decision-
between Old and New primarily in terms of continuity. John sees making, dependenGY, and dying. In this respect, Rudolf Bultmann,
it in terms of polarity, but not a polarity in which the Old has a whose views on the Old Testament have been much criticized, 158
purely negative function. Rather the Old must be seen completely has quite rightly affirmed the indispensability of the Old Testa-
in light of the New, and the failure to do so constitutes the ground ment for the New. In his characteristic way of putting the matter,
for condemnation whereby "Israel" becomes "the Jews," and the the Old Testament as law provides the indispensable existential
latter, in their obduracy, "the world." In Hebrews we see a point presupposition for understanding the New. Man in Old Testament
of view closer to John than to Luke, but without the visible animus terms is the man to whom the Gospel is addressed, because that
toward the representatives of an old dispensation that will not man understands himself as responsible for disposing of himself
change. Nevertheless, "He abolishes the first in order to establish before God. Only such a man can receive grace, for apart from
the second" (10:9); thus the Old is fulfilled and displaced by the such a self-understanding grace is a meaningless concept. What-
New no less thoroughly in Hebrews than in John. ever may be said by way of criticizing or questioning the adequacy
In a very helpful way von Rad has shown that the reinterpre- of this view of the Old Testament's relevance, it can scarcely be
tation of the old sagas and traditions in the light of a new salvation-
gainsaid as far as it goes. For the irrelevance and impotence of
event either anticipated or accomplished, is a phenomenon quite
, 156 the church is the inevitable result of failure to understand man as .
common in the Old Testament from the Exodus onward. In
a creature responsible before God, whose creatureliness and re-
principle, or formally considered, the New Testament represents a
sponsibility are neither resolved nor negated, but redeemed,. by
continuation or extension of this proct;!ss, although the reinterpre-
the Gospel message of the New Testament. Where the Old Testa-
tation is carried through in a quite radical way. Again, the closest
ment is ignored, such an understanding of man as creature, -indeed
historically contemporary analogy to this reinterpretation is prob-
as historical and societal creature, usually disappears, and the
ably to be found in Qumran. Although Qumran has no "New
New Testament is wrongly regarded as only a handbook of personal
Testament" in the proper sense of the word, the impetus and the piety and religion.
initial stages of another canonical corpus, or at least the extension
of the inherited scriptures in consequence of the sect's unique
experience and consciousness, can already be seen in the surviving was very close to theJamnian canon. But the criterion of use is also an important factor
documents. 157 in establishing canonicity, and by this criterion Qumran would seem to have been in
the process of expanding its canon. See, for example, the War Scroll, the Manual of
Discipline, and the Damascus Document.
156. Old Testament Theology, vol. II: The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions,
158. See especially the B. W. Anderson volume which consists of an interesting and
trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pt. 3, esp. pp. 319-35.
important series of critical responses to Bultmann's opening essay, "The Significance
157. Eybers may be right in contending that, strictly speaking, the canon of Qumran of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith" (first published in 1933).

Use-Of OT-in NT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use-Of OT-in NT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use-Of OT-in NT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE USE OF

© 1972, Duke University Press

IN THE NEW AND

WILLIAM FRANKLIN STINESPRING

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Composition by Maurice Jacobs, Inc.

Professor William F. Stinespring's career has been an expression

THE OLD TESTAMENT AT THE BEGINNING

Paul or are about to occur, is a common factor binding Qumran exegesis

Marcan account of Jesus' preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth

You might also like