This review was published by RBL 2006 by the Society of Biblical Literature.

For more information on obtaining a

subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
RBL 10/2006

Abasciano, Brian J.
Pauls Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.19: An
Intertextual and Theological Exegesis
Library of New Testament Studies 301
London: T&T Clark, 2005. Pp. xi + 265. Hardcover.
$120.00. ISBN 0567030733.
Steve Moyise
University of Chichester
Chichester, United Kingdom
This revised version of a dissertation from the University of Aberdeen (2003) offers the
most detailed account to date of Pauls use of Scripture in Rom 9:19. The introduction is
relatively short (126), focusing particularly on the work of Richard Hays and the belief
that Romans is most fruitfully understood when it is read as an intertextual conversation
between Paul and the voice of Scripture (26, quoting Echoes, 35). Abasciano cites Hayss
seven criteria for detecting scriptural echoes (slightly adapted), adding that volume
(verbal, syntactical, and structural coherence) and thematic coherence will bear the
bulk of methodological weight (24). However, he does not share Hayss interest in the
possibility of a variety of reading effects but focuses on what (he thinks) can be
demonstrated as Pauls authorial intention. He assumes that the high level of scriptural
argumentation in Romans leads us to posit scripturally astute readers (26), dismissing
the opposite view (e.g., Stanley) that the likely low levels of literacy among Pauls readers
should affect our reconstructions of Paul.
Before embarking on the two main exegetical chapters (9:15 and 69), there is a short
chapter (2744) on the purpose of Romans and the role of Rom 911 in the book.
Abasciano allows for multiple purposes within the general aim of wanting the Christians
at Rome to be united and supportive of his mission to Spain. He sees a chiastic structure
This review was published by RBL 2006 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
both in Rom 911 and, more particularly, in 9:629 (Israel, seed, love, mercy, will, power,
revealwill, reveal, power, mercy, love, Israel, seed). Although Rom 911 clearly
emphasizes the faithfulness of God, it is not Israels unbelief that has called this into
question but Gods rejection of Israel and hence the exclusion of Israel from salvation
(33).
The longest chapter (45146) is likely to confirm the suspicions of those who are critical
of an intertextual approach. On the basis of an allusion to Exod 32:32 (Moses plea for
Israel and willingness to share its fate) in Rom 9:3 (Pauls sorrow for Israel and
willingness to be anathema for its sake), the stories of Exod 3234 are used to illuminate
and in some cases determine the meaning of almost every word in Rom 9:16. This is the
more startling given the frank admission that there are no verbal or structural parallels
between the two texts. Nevertheless, Abasciano argues that volume (the passage is a
locus classicus for intercessory prayer on behalf of Israel) and recurrence (Paul cites
Exod 33:19 in Rom 9:15 and makes extensive use of Exod 3234 in 1 Cor 10 and 2 Cor 3)
are sufficient to confirm the allusion. He is probably correct, though I feel uneasy with his
conclusion: Thus, Exod. 32.32 meets every test for a scriptural allusion discussed in our
introductory chapter (73). If it meets every test yet does not contain a single word in
common or structural parallel, something has surely gone awry with the tests.
Nevertheless, Exod 3234 proves to be an illuminating background for understanding
Pauls heart-felt grief in Rom 9:13 and the list of Israels privileges in 9:45. For the
former, Abasciano argues that Paul contemplates a prayer that would offer to join his
people in their accursed state as an inducement to the Lord to spare them rather than the
standard view of Pauls prayer/wish to refer to some sort of substitution (144). An
example of the latter is an understanding of ethnic Israels possession of the blessings of
election as ideal rather actual, partial and outward rather than fully and in truth (145).
There are two quotations in Rom 9:69 (Gen 21:12 and 18:10/14), and their proximity
allows Abasciano to consider whether Paul intends to evoke the narratives of Gen 1821.
As with the previous chapter, Abasciano begins by offering a summary of the Old
Testament passages, a comparison between Pauls quotations and LXX/MT and a summary
of other key interpreters (in this case, 4 Ezra, Philo, 4Q180, the Targums, Genesis Rabbah,
Luke, and Hebrews). He considers the passage to resemble the later rabbinic proem
midrash form, with Gen 21:12 as the key text. Paul sees in the exclusion of Ishmael an
example of Abrahams physical seed who nevertheless experiences a measure of blessing
and is thus a parallel to nonbelieving Israel (194).
In his concluding chapter, Abasciano draws some implications for the interpretation of
Rom 911 and Pauls contextual use of scripture. For the former, he suggests that Pauls
This review was published by RBL 2006 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
covenant theology is contrary to a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and that
election and calling are conditional upon faith in Jesus Christ (219). He also advocates
an ecclesiological interpretation of Rom 11:26 (And so all Israel will be saved). For the
latter, the key themes are typology, analogy and eschatology. Thus the content of the Old
Testament contexts Paul alludes to suggests to him what God is doing now, and what his
own responses and that of his readers should be (228). Abasciano acknowledges that
Pauls contextual understanding is not to be equated with that of a modern historical
critic and that Paul necessarily advances a meaning that differs from the exact original
intention of his intertext (232). But this has rather to do with application and flows
from Pauls Christian presuppositions, notably, that the Church of Christ is the true
Israel who is the heir of the promises of God (232). Abasciano ends by reiterating his
earlier assumption that Paul assumes his audience will recognize his intertextual activity
and what he thinks he has demonstrated, that a great treasure trove of exegetical insights
can be mined from the original contexts of his allusions (23334).
This is a rich and insightful study that shows the fruitfulness of exploring the complex
intertextual connections between Paul and the Old Testament. I am happiest when
Abasciano is being circumspect. For example, he is careful to say on page 144 that he does
not wish to suggest that Exod 3234 was the determinative influence or even the
primary background for Rom 911 but an important pointer. On the other hand,
when discussing Pauls use of typology, he can claim: We have seen that in his allusions
to Exodus and Genesis that his entire personal response to the circumstances
surrounding him was conditioned by what he found in Scripture. Even his emotional
reaction was largely determined by the Scriptures through which he interpreted his
times (228). Leaving aside the difficulty of speaking about Pauls entire personal
response, it seems to me that the words conditioned and determined are inadvisable,
especially as Abascianos concluding words point to a more dialectical reality (scripture is
interpreted through the lens of Christ and the gospel even as Christ and the gospel are
interpreted through the lens of scripture). One of the advantages of a narrative approach
is that it is more plausible to imagine a reader making connections with a well-known
story. Hays claimed that Deut 32 contains Romans in nuce, and Abasciano wishes to add
that Exod 3234 and Gen 1821 contain Rom 911 in nuce. He may be right, but it does
raise a question mark against using this study to generalize about Pauls use of scripture.
Not every passage Paul quotes can be his argument in nuce. Finally, though Abasciano
makes it clear that his interest in intertextuality is purely historical and focused on Pauls
intentions, it seems to me that a broader literary understanding would be more helpful in
a study such as this. We can say with a reasonable degree of probability that Paul evokes
Exod 3234 and that this invites us (as it did the original hearers) to explore possible
connections. It is going to be very difficult to draw a line between what was definitely
This review was published by RBL 2006 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
intended by Paul and what is possible, probable, or suggestive. But then Abasciano knows
my position and disagrees with it.