RBL 10/2014

Christopher D. Stanley, ed.

Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation

Early Christianity and Its Literature 9

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Pp. x + 357.

Paper. $44.95. ISBN 9781589836945.

Nijay Gupta
Northeastern Seminary
Rochester, New York

Paul and Scripture is a collection of essays and responses that developed out of a Society
of Biblical Literature six-year seminar (2005–2010) on Pauline intertexuality. In 2008, a
volume from the first three years of the seminar’s work was published under the title As It
Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Paul and Scripture marks the fruits of the
seminar’s labor from its remaining years (hence the subtitle). The book is divided into
five parts: “Historical Context” (chs. 1–3), “Text and Context” (chs. 4–6), “Beyond the
Hauptbriefe” (chs. 7–9), “Scripture in Paul’s Theology” (chs. 10–12), and “Conclusion.”
The back-matter contains the expected ancient and modern author indexes.

In the first chapter Leonard Greenspoon seeks to engage with the issue of whether Paul
cited Scripture from memory or primarily relied on studying texts. Greenspoon notes
that, if Paul had a normal Greco-Roman education in Tarsus, memorization of “large
sections of literary works” would have been included in his schooling (11). Even in a
Jewish education of the time, learning the Greek Bible thoroughly would have been a top
priority for his teachers. When it comes to the question of whether or not a fault in Paul’s
memory could have produced some of his deviations from what we know as the Old
Testament text he cited, Greenspoon finds this possible but not the only explanation. He
considers it more likely that differences can often be accounted for because of Paul’s
interpretation of Scripture in view of the Christ-event.

This review was published by RBL ©2014 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
In the next essay Jeremy Punt uses social and cultural memory theories to shed new light
on how and why Paul used Scripture. From this perspective, “cultural memory is
concerned with notions and events of the past, which it actively props up through cultural
formations such as texts, rituals, monuments, and institutional communication
(recitation, practice, observance)” (30). Perhaps, then, with his regular appeal to
Scripture, Paul was trying to reinforce a social identity within the largely gentile churches
by “socializing” them into the memories of the wider group (see 34). From this
perspective, appealing to ancient texts is not merely about looking at the past but about
“putting past and present selves together” (41). This is a fresh approach to thinking about
Paul’s use of Scripture, one that could continue to yield many insights.

Next Bruce Fisk looks at Paul as a “storyteller” in view of other Jewish writers of the time
who engaged in retelling the tale of Israel. Too often we treat Paul, so Fisk explains, as a
“legalistic sage, an impassioned rhetor, or an ad hoc pastoral troubleshooter.” Fisk argues
that we can make much sense of Paul if we are willing to see him as a kind of novelist
(59). Much like several of the other contributors, Fisk urges that Paul did not merely cite
or record Old Testament texts but engaged in interpretation of those texts, especially
when we set him alongside other storytellers from his time.

In part 2 Steve Moyise and Mitchell Kim go back and forth on the question of whether or
not Paul showed “respect” for the ancient historical context of the source texts of his
citations. Kim draws from the work of philosopher Michael Polanyi to bring attention to
what is called “latent knowledge,” whereby someone knows more than he or she can say
(i.e., assumed knowledge). Kim argues that Paul may be bringing out the “latent
knowledge” of a text in light of a new setting (see 115–16). Seen in this way, one can move
beyond seeing “respect” for original context only as use of a quotation that matches the
original author’s intentions. As I read Kim’s essay, I wondered how one can prove that
the explication of latent knowledge is valid. Kim addresses this briefly but not
satisfactorily, in my opinion. My concerns appeared to be affirmed in Moyise’s critical
response (see 138).

Part 3 (“Beyond the Hauptbriefe”) examines three texts that are normally overlooked in
the conversation of Paul and Scripture: 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Colossians. In
this section I found Stephen Fowl’s chapter on Philippians especially good food for
thought. First, he distinguishes “authorial motives” (which are impossible to know in
most cases because it involves mind-reading) from “communicative intentions” (which
are easier to determine as they are rhetorically encoded into the text). When it comes to
the first readers of Philippians, Fowl recognizes that only “fully catechized readers” would
have picked up on Paul’s subtle allusions to Old Testament texts. In terms of modern
readers, though, Fowl takes a more canonical approach: “Christians today should take

This review was published by RBL ©2014 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
these allusions seriously. It would be extremely odd to argue that Christians should not
attend to these allusions despite their potential benefits for Christian life and practice
because the epistle’s first audience might not have recognized them. No matter how one
resolves the historical questions, commenting and reflecting on such allusions would
seem to be an essential element of interpreting Scripture theologically” (180). While, in
fact, I am open to Fowl’s suggestion about a theological reading of Philippians, he never
explains why this is expected of Christians today. Is it because the framers of the canon
collected the wholeness of the biblical corpus so that it could operate in this way? Is it
because God speaks through these allusions whether or not Paul or the original readers
fully realized the connections and their meanings?

Part 4 begins with Linda Belleville’s study of how Paul may have been influenced by and
even appealed to “other voices”—texts and traditions other than the Old Testament.
Using a number of case studies, she points to possible uses of a variety of “other voices”
such as cultural proverbs, early Christian liturgy, and Jewish folklore. This is helpful in
the study of Paul’s theological use of Scripture because, as Belleville reasons, taking into
account the presence of “other voices” may help us avoid entertaining that Paul’s
ostensible deviation from the wording or details of the Old Testament texts are the
product of “an overactive imagination” (258). Matthew Bates, in the next essay, encourages
what he calls a “diachronic intertextuality.” Bates explains that we often study Paul’s use
of Scripture in relation to other Jewish writers of his time. But Bates wonders why
modern scholars almost never look at how Christian writers around and after Paul read
the Old Testament. Bates offers a case study looking at the biblical interpretation of Justin
Martyr and Origen. Finally, in this section Roy Ciampa brings insights from “translation
studies” to bear on the perplexities and challenges that are faced when making sense of
Paul’s use of Scripture. Just as there is no one, singular, perfect, and objective translation
of one text into another language, so we must break from such an approach to thinking
through how Paul conveys Old Testament texts to his readers. There are different
purposes and even ideological motivations that affect the process and work of translation
(and often we can recognize that these purposes and motivations are good and proper).
So it appears also to be with Paul. This is no more dubious or irresponsible for the apostle
than it is for modern translators who wrestle with the proper act of communication that
is appropriately response, contextualized, and understandable. This essay is the one that
repays the reader the most from this volume.

Christopher D. Stanley, the editor of the volume, aptly reflects on the six-year work of the
seminar. Two points in particular seem crucial as the conversation continues in the
future. First, Stanley notes that the seminar was keenly interested in how Paul’s references
to Scripture relate to the original context. Stanley did not find that the seminar made
much progress in moving toward a consensus (even as the dialogue between Moyise and

This review was published by RBL ©2014 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Kim demonstrates in the book). Another unresolved matter pertains to Paul’s rhetorical
purposes and his readers: Were they expected to catch his allusions, and, if so, to what
ends?

While Stanley is right that such matters were not settled once and for all in the seminar or
the book(s), any reader of Paul and Scripture will conclude that this contribution to the
continuing conversation is substantial especially from the perspective of the employment
of new methods (e.g., social/cultural memory, diachronic intertextuality, canonical
interpretation, translation studies), the improvement of our sociohistorical knowledge
(e.g., regarding Paul’s education), or simply the introduction of thought-provoking
questions. While this volume is specialized and involves plenty of technical language and
discussion, I have no doubt that it offers an invaluable resource for students of Pauline
intertextuality.

This review was published by RBL ©2014 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.