Professional Documents
Culture Documents
epistles were written primarily to address problems and disagreements within the early church.
That Paul would fail to make explicit use of points of agreement in order to settle points of
disagreement is contrary to his obvious patterns of argument in at least some of his epistles.iv This
argument assumes, rather, that Paul would rely on his readers to recall on their own just the right
portion of the Jesus tradition which would support his argument. A further corollary of this
position is that Paul's extensive quotation of the Jewish Scriptures must have meant that his
audience was quite unfamiliar with this tradition.
In the remainder of this brief essay, I wish to call attention to a few features of Paul's use
of sources, namely the Jewish Scriptures, and what these features may reveal about his failure to
quote the Jesus tradition. In short, Paul used sources like a rabbi. When he offered quotations as
support for his arguments, his most common introduction was kathos gegraptai. Paul wrote in a
time when there were certainly no authoritative written versions of the Jesus tradition. He was,
therefore, unable to construct exegetical arguments from the teachings of Jesus, even if he knew
them well.v
Paul quotes the Jewish Scriptures some ninety-three times. Of these, E. E. Ellis concluded
that fifty-one were "in absolute or virtual agreement with the LXX." Furthermore, he considered
four of these quotations to be in agreement with the Hebrew text and the other thirty-eight to be
divergent from both the Greek and Hebrew traditions.vii Why would Paul use the Jewish
Scriptures in such an inconsistent manner? Was he careless, haphazard, or even ignorant? Surely,
a large number of answers to this question could be advanced. I would like to propose one which
also answers the questions above concerning Paul's use, or lack of use, of the Jesus tradition.
Few interpreters doubt the veracity of the statement in Acts 22:3 that Paul received a
rabbinic education, as a student of the great rabbi, Gamaliel. This raises the possibility, perhaps
probability, that Paul wrote and argued in a manner related to that in which he was taught as a
rabbi. One of the distinctive features of rabbinic exegesis was what Michael Fishbane has
identified as "the al tiqre technique." This refers to the practice of rabbis of the Talmudic era
altering the reading of scripture using the construction "al tiqure (do not read)...elah (but)..." The
actual reading of the Hebrew text would be inserted after al tiqre and the emended reading of the
rabbi after elah.viii Of course, Paul was writing in Greek and most often to a Gentile audience, so
he could not use this esoteric rabbinic construction. Might Paul have been doing something
similar, however, in his alternate uses of biblical traditions. Fishbane made two important
assertions about the al tiqre technique which fit Paul strikingly. The technique "clarifies an
otherwise opaque exegetical exposition" and "is also the means for articulating some relatively
radical rabbinic theology."
Two examples may serve to illustrate how well both of these descriptions fit Paul's
exegetical arguments. In Gal. 3:6 Paul quotes Gen. 15:6. In this case a literal translation of the
Hebrew text into Greek would clearly not have served his purpose because of the ambiguity of the
Hebrew text. MT reads, "And he believed YHWH, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness."
It is not at all clear who is reckoning what to whom. Instead, Paul quotes LXX almost precisely.
LXX reads, "And Abram believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness." While 15b
still contains only pronouns, the ambiguity has effectively been removed. Thus the LXX reading
of Gen. 15:6 makes Paul's point that righteousness (justification) is the result of belief (faith). In
essence, Paul may just as well have said "Al tiqre the Hebrew text elah the Greek text." Just a
few verses later in Gal. 3:11 Paul makes reference to Hab. 2:4b. Here are literal translations of
the three pertinent versions of this clause.
Paul makes the phrase fit into his argument smoothly by choosing neither the third nor the first
person pronoun. Here the rabbinic equivalent would have been "Al tiqre his faith or my faith elah
faith." By omitting any possessive pronoun, Paul avoids a thorny theological problem. Is faith a
human achievement or purely a gift from God?ix Through use of his own equivalent of the al tiqre
technique Paul makes his point while sidestepping this question.
Surprisingly, the major works on Paul's relation to Judaism make little or no mention of
Paul's techniques of using scripture compared to those of the Jewish scribes. I have found no
such reference in either W. D Davies's Paul and Rabbinic Judaism or E. P. Sanders's Paul and
Palestinian Judaism. Ellis did make reference to some similarities and differences between Pauline
and rabbinic method, but this was almost exclusively in reference to the use of introductory
formulae.x Paul was writing Greek epistles for Gentile Christians, not midrash for fellow Jewish
scholars. Therefore, he was limited in the extent to which he could make use of characteristic
rabbinic methods. I hope I have demonstrated, however, the distinct possibility that he made use
of an adapted form of one particular rabbinic technique.
Conclusion
The question with which this essay began was "Why did Paul quote the Jewish Scriptures
so often and not the Jesus tradition?" Perhaps the way in which Paul used the former makes it
clear why he could not use the latter. Rabbis in Paul's time quoted accepted authoritative tradition
in their arguments. Paul, arguing like a rabbi, could no use the Jesus tradition for support. His
lack of clear references to the Jesus tradition tells us nothing about whether he knew it, but only
that he did not consider it authoritative.
Recent interpretation of Paul's writings have focused almost entirely on Hellenistic literary
forms as a basis for comparison. As nearly every Pauline scholar has acknowledged, Paul was
also a child of first century Judaism. The role which this literary tradition played in Paul's work as
a writer has not been adequately explored. I hope this essay may serve as some small impetus for
those more adept in rabbinics to intensify such exploration.
Notes
i. D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). See also the
important review of this work by M. D. Hooker in SBL 115 (1996), pp. 756-758, with which I am largely in agreement.
v. An argument similar to this is hinted at by Hooker, "Review of Paul. Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity,"
SBL(115), p. 758. She proposes that Paul quoted Scripture and not Jesus because Scripture was "the authoritative body of
teaching to which one appealed." The unaddressed question this begs is, why was Scripture authoritative for a Christian
apostle and the teaching of Jesus was not?
vi. Naming the entity which Paul quoted is difficult, as will become clear below. I use this vague designation to describe
the scriptures of the Jewish people, both in their Hebrew and Greek forms.
vii. This is the count of E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), pp. 11-12.
viii. M. Fishbane, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press),
pp. 22-23.
ix. Note how Paul stumbles over this same issue in 4:9.
x. E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament, pp. 45-46.
TRANSLATE