rewriting prophets in the corinthian correspondence: a ... · stark: rewriting prophets in the...

Bulletin for Biblical Research 22 .2 (2012) 225–249

Rewriting Prophets in the Corinthian Correspondence:

A Window on Paul’s Hermeneutic

J . David StarkFaulkner University

Recent discussions of “rewritten Bible” have largely focused on generic char-acteristics that might define and hold together usefully a certain body of Jewish literature. But more profitable is a characterization of rewritten Bible that stresses the hermeneutical process that has produced a given “rewriting” of a biblical text. When appreciated, this way of considering rewritten Bible also provides a firmer basis for connecting these documents with Paul’s letters and elucidating these letters’ hermeneutics. For example, juxtaposing 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 with L .A .B . 50:2 and Tg . Neb . Jer 9:22–23 highlights the Corinthian letters’ transformation of 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v. 24) within the world-restructuring narrative of יהוה’s acts in Jesus.

Key Words: Paul, Jesus, Pseudo-Philo, Targum of the Prophets, hermeneutics, use of the OT in the NT, 1 Kgdms 2:10, Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v. 24), 1 Cor 1:31, 2 Cor 10:17, L .A .B . 50:2, Tg . Neb . Jer 9:22–23

Introduction

In the broadest sense of the phrase, any use of Jewish Scripture by a later author(s) could be understood to constitute a form of “rewritten Bible .” 1 The phrase “rewritten Bible” has, however, come to have a technical mean-ing whereby it designates a certain body of ancient Jewish literature . The precise shape of this body of literature continues to be debated, but even with consensus on this specific point as far away as it is, rewritten Bible can contribute valuable information to the study of Paul’s use of Scripture . Aided by a slightly redirected definition of the category that stresses her-meneutical process over generic characteristics, rewritten Bible provides a particularly useful foil for studying Paul’s citations in 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 and the hermeneutical paradigm on which these citations’ validity implicitly rests . In this case, Paul’s connections with rewritten Bible texts especially help disclose how the Corinthian letters transform 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) within the narrative of יהוה’s acts

1 . Cf . George J . Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed . Law-rence H . Schiffman and James C . VanderKam; 2 vols .; New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2000) 2:778 .

Bulletin for Biblical Research 22.2226

in Jesus that, as Paul argues, should effectively restructure his audience’s hermeneutical world .

What Is “Rewritten Bible”? Situating and Recasting a Key Definition

Much recent work done on rewritten Bible has concentrated on “rewriting” as a generic characteristic, and this generic focus ultimately owes its ori-gin to Geza Vermes’s description that he provided with his coinage of the phrase “rewritten Bible” in 1961 . 2 As examples of rewritten Bible, Vermes cited the “Palestinian Targum and Jewish Antiquities, Ps .-Philo and Jubilees, and the . . . ‘Genesis Apocryphon .’” 3 According to Vermes, rewritten Bible is comprised of “haggadic development[s that were inserted] into the bibli-cal narrative .” 4 He observed that this procedure “is probably as ancient as scriptural interpretation itself” and that rewritten biblical texts “anticipate questions” and “solve problems in advance .” 5 Besides haggadic develop-ments, Vermes later described the rewritten Bible genre as “incorporat[ing] various explanatory devices into the biblical narrative with a view to clari-fying, embellishing, completing or updating it .” 6

Bible as Scripture

In response, Sidnie White Crawford notes that lines of canonicity were still somewhat fluid in the Second Temple period, at least among different Jewish groups . 7 Thus, in agreement with George Brooke, 8 Crawford pre-fers to speak of “rewritten Scripture” rather than “rewritten Bible,” even characterizing Vermes’s designation as “problematic .” 9 But difficulties also attach themselves to this assessment of how “problematic” the phrase “re-written Bible” actually is .

First, in coining the phrase “rewritten Bible,” Vermes himself seems to have had a somewhat different reference frame from Brooke or Crawford . That is, on one occasion, Vermes clarifies what he means by “Bible,” saying,

2 . Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 2, 10; see Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (1st ed .; StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961) 67–126 .

3 . Idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd ed .; StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 95; cf . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 3 .

4 . Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd ed ., 68, 95; cf . Sidnie White Crawford, “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts,” ErIsr 26 (1999) 1; idem, Rewriting Scripture, 12–13 .

5 . Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd ed ., 95; Michael H . Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed . Matthias Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 12 .

6 . Geza Vermes, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” ErIsr 20 (1989) 187; cf . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 187 .

7 . Ibid ., 6–7, 11–13; cf . idem, “ ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran,” 1 .8 . George J . Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understand-

ing the Text of the Bible,” in The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed . Edward D . Herbert and Emanuel Tov; Bible as Book 4; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll, 2002) 36 .

9 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 12 .

Stark: Rewriting Prophets in the Corinthian Correspondence 227

From at least 100 ce onwards, and possibly even from a somewhat earlier date, the Bible was a fairly precisely defined entity in rabbinic circles, containing the customary books of the Hebrew Scriptures with only Ben Sira’s status remaining for a while uncertain . The situation prevailing among the Dead Sea Scrolls is far less clear-cut . Neither the canon, nor the actual text of the individual writings seems to be firmly established . 10

Thus, Vermes would appear to have recognized the same canonical flex-ibility as Brooke and Crawford would see within Second Temple Judaism . Nevertheless, because Vermes wished to tie to the interpretation of Israel’s sacred texts the rewriting that he observed in some other texts, he looked to the rabbinic period for a firm description of precisely which sacred texts were best established as such for Israel . 11

Second, Crawford appears inclined to take the term Bible as describing a single, definite, and fixed set of documents . 12 This reference is certainly legitimate, but it is far from necessary . Indeed, a broader, current usage for the term Bible becomes apparent when examining, for instance, the Jerusalem Bible and the New American Standard Bible in tandem . 13

Third, despite some debates that may still have been active about the status of some works that stood at canonical margins in the Second Temple period, 14 even then, the contents of Jewish Scripture seem to have been fairly well defined . 15 Consequently, qualms expressed about the appropri-ateness of the phrase “rewritten Bible” based on variegation in usage of Scripture during the Second Temple period appear overplayed . Therefore, Vermes’s phrase “rewritten Bible” is retained here, while making explicit the qualification that Vermes originally left implicit—namely, incomplete definition of canonical Jewish literature during the Second Temple period . 16

Rewritten Bible: The Search for Generic Characteristics

Sequential versus NarrativalFurther, because Vermes’s original description of this category was fairly general, some scholars have tried to describe the features of rewritten Bible more specifically . 17 Among the generic characteristics that have been sug-

10 . Vermes, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” 184; emphasis original .11 . Cf . Moshe J . Bernstein, “ ‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived

Its Usefulness?,” Text 22 (2005) 172 n . 3 .12 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 12–13; cf . idem, “ ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran .”13 . Cf . Stephen B . Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon

Formation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 106–9 .14 . Louis A . Brighton, “The Book of Esther: Textual and Canonical Considerations,” Con-

cordia Journal 13/3 (1987) 2; James H . Charlesworth, ed ., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (1st ed .; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85) xxiii .

15 . Chapman, The Law and the Prophets, 108–10 .16 . Cf . Brooke, “Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms,” 36 .17 . Philip S . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing

Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (ed . D . A . Carson and H . G . M . Williamson; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 99–100 .


gested for rewritten Bible are, first, that rewritten Bible texts are sequen-tial, but at least potentially selective, compositions that tend to retain their sources’ generic characteristics . 18 To the contrary, Philip Alexander argues for a distinctively narrative element in rewritten Bible texts . 19 In particular, Alexander suggests that rewritten Bible texts are “narratives, which follow a sequential, chronological order .” 20 Yet, in view of literature such as the Temple Scroll, this description may be overly restrictive . Although it oper-ates on legal material rather than narrative, the Temple Scroll reconstitutes and re-presents biblical literature much as does what Alexander would label “rewritten Bible .” 21

In Alexander’s defense, part of the reason for the narrative characteris-tic that he specifies for rewritten Bible may simply derive from the sample of texts that he consulted (Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, and Jewish Antiquities), 22 which may or may not fully represent rewritten Bible texts overall according to the definition of the category adopted here . Nevertheless, because the biblical literature itself includes more literary genres than narrative, there appears to be no good, a priori reason to exclude from the category of rewritten Bible a text that rewrites material from these other genres in literary forms other than narrative . 23

Independence

Another commonly proposed, generic characteristic for rewritten Bible is that rewritten Bible texts constitute independent, free-standing composi-tions where material more directly transferred from a given biblical text is seamlessly intermixed with additional commentary material . 24 As it provides a consistent trail of interpretation through the text, 25 this com-mentary material frequently uses “non-biblical tradition and draw[s] on non-biblical sources, whether oral or written .” 26 Alternatively, rewritten Bible may comment simply by harmonizing one biblical text with another . 27

For Crawford, the freedom with which a given piece of rewritten Bible includes extrabiblical commentary material constitutes a significant, defin-

18 . Brooke, “Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms,” 32–33; cf . idem, “Rewritten Bible,” 780; George W . E . Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed . Michael E . Stone; CRINT 2/2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 89–90 .

19 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 116–17; cf . Segal, “Rewritten Bible,” 20–21 .20 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 116 .21 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 12–14, especially 13 n . 44 .22 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 99–100; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 10 .23 . Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 777–78; cf . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 195; Crawford,

Rewriting Scripture, 11 .24 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 116–17; Brooke, “Rewritten Law, Prophets

and Psalms,” 32; idem, “Rewritten Bible,” 780; Segal, “Rewritten Bible,” 20; Emanuel Tov, “Re-written Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” DSD 5 (1998) 336–37, 352 .

25 . Segal, “Rewritten Bible,” 24–25 .26 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 118 .27 . Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 780 .


ing feature for four different categories within the rewritten Bible group itself . 28 According to Crawford, these categories form a “spectrum of texts” along this line of increasing freedom:

1 . texts that rework only by harmonization and apparently do not intend to form new compositions (e .g ., the pre-Samaritan Torah text) 29

2 . texts that use extrabiblical material but were not intended to constitute new compositions (e .g ., 4QReworked Pentateuch)

3 . texts that use extrabiblical material and were intended to constitute new compositions (e .g ., Jubilees)

4 . texts that explicitly introduce extrabiblical material in a lemma-plus-commentary format (e .g ., 4QCommentary on Genesis) 30

Despite this classification scheme’s virtues, the scheme also introduces two significant difficulties .

First, as one of the two key components for defining each stage along this continuum in relation to the others, Crawford takes the degree to which a document was intended to form a new composition . According to this criterion, the quantity of extrabiblical commentary material and the manner in which it is included in a given document, taken together, appar-ently determine the likelihood that a given document was intended to be a new composition rather than a new edition of an existing composition . Consequently, this component differs markedly from the simple observa-tion that rewritten Bible documents have their own coherence as literary pieces . Rather, this criterion presses beyond these texts as they currently exist to classify them according to a very narrow distinction between a new edition of an existing work and a new work based on an existing work . 31 However, Crawford does not appear to provide a sufficient description of the difference between these two nuances, nor does she appear to suggest a method for determining where a given work might fall in relation to this line . Were Crawford to provide such a method, this qualm about her classification system would vastly diminish because the presentation of this method would help clarify the definitions involved in this criterion .

Second, as her final category of “rewritten Bible” texts, Crawford in-cludes literature that explicitly employs a lemma-plus-commentary form . These literary bodies’ shared interpretive qualities notwithstanding, com-mentary literature fails to integrate the interpretations it provides into the biblical text that it cites . However, this trait constitutes a regularly constitu-tive characteristic for other forms of rewritten Bible, and strictly speaking, commentary literature does not interpret the biblical text when presenting it . This interpretation is typically deferred until the commentary portion of a given section where, in contrast to texts that integrate a biblical text and

28 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 12–14; cf . idem, “ ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran,” 3 .29 . Cf . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 175 .30 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 13–14 .31 . Cf . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 189 .


its commentary, 32 multiple interpretations may be provided more easily for a given biblical text (e .g ., 1QpHab 1:16–2:10) . Moreover, where com-mentary literature may edit the quotations that it takes from biblical liter-ature, it regularly edits these quotations separately from each other rather than as a “substantial portion” of text . 33 Consequently, there appear to be some significant merits to maintaining a distinction between commentary literature and rewritten Bible texts . 34

Nonalternativity

As a third typical characteristic of the “rewritten Bible” group, these re-written texts were not generally received as replacements or substitu-tions for the literature on which they were originally based . 35 At the same time, Moshe Bernstein recognizes that what may be rewritten Bible for one group may be biblical text for another . 36 Moreover, Crawford observes that rewritten Bible texts frequently claim for themselves the same kind of authority that would have been given to their base texts (for example, 11Q19 55:2–21) . 37 She even notes this claim as a regular feature of each of her four subcategories of rewritten Bible literature . 38 But Crawford judi-ciously refrains from making this sort of authority claim to be a constitu-tive feature of the rewritten Bible group, for doing so would automatically exclude other works where this claim is absent but where Scripture is just as clearly rewritten (for example, Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities) .

Breadth

Fourth, rewritten Bible texts rework “substantial portion[s]” of text instead of isolated, individual pericopes . 39 For Alexander, this attribute excludes works such as the Book of Noah or the Book of Giants from the category of rewritten Bible because

[t]hese expansions take as their starting point a single episode of the Bible, or a very short passage, and expand it almost beyond recog-nition . They are basically centrifugal . Rewritten Bible texts are cen-tripetal: they come back to the Bible again and again . The rewritten Bible texts make use of the legendary material, but by placing that material within an extended biblical narrative . . . they clamp the legends firmly to the biblical framework and reintegrate them into the biblical history . 40

32 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 117–18 .33 . Cf . Ibid ., 117 .34 . Cf . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 177 .35 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 116; Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 780; Tov,

“Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts,” 354 .36 . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 175 .37 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 13; cf . Crawford, “ ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran,” 5 .38 . Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 13–14 .39 . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 117 .40 . Ibid .; cf . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 186; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 10–11, 14 .


Of course, one might debate what precisely would constitute rewriting a “substantial portion” of a given, biblical text, but quite appropriate is Alex-ander’s essential distinction between works that rewrite biblical texts and works that simply situate themselves in relation to a particular, biblical text .

Paul and Rewriting

Nevertheless, although understandings of what constitutes rewritten Bible literature range widely, 41 whatever shape this corpus has fundamentally rests on the hermeneutical phenomenon of interpretation by recasting a series of individual, biblical texts in terms of some related though distinct framework . As the physical act of rewriting progresses, these individual interpretations become integrated into larger wholes to form distinct liter-ary compositions . That is, as a literary category, rewritten Bible texts are the products of a process of rewriting that was applied to individual, words, sen-tences, and pericopes . 42 But the literary product and the hermeneutical con-text of these rewritten texts are ultimately inseparable because the physical act of rewriting and the hermeneutical context in which that act occurred are only preserved implicitly in the rewritten Bible texts themselves . 43

Nevertheless, distinguishing between these literary and hermeneuti-cal aspects of rewritten Bible becomes particularly significant as one con-siders the relationship(s) that rewritten Bible texts might have with the Pauline corpus . For, at the level of whole literary works, rewritten Bible texts and Pauline letters typically differ a good deal from each other . Mani-festly, Paul does not rework whole, independent documents to form new,

41 . See Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” for a summary .42 . Ibid ., 195; D . J . Harrington, “The Bible Rewritten (Narratives),” in Early Judaism and

Its Modern Interpreters (ed . Robert A . Kraft and George W . E . Nickelsburg; The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 242–43 . In relation to this reference of the phrase “rewritten Bible,” partly to a hermeneutical process rather than to a set of generic characteristics alone, Bernstein (“Rewritten Bible,” 179) cautions that “the freer use of the term ‘rewritten Bible’ has not aided in focusing scholarly attention on the unifying vs . divergent traits of some of these early interpretive works .” Bernstein apparently raises this pragmatic objection because including a hermeneutical process under the phrase “rewritten Bible” makes developing and observing a consistent, generic description more difficult (e .g ., ibid ., 179–80, 187) . Therefore (ibid ., 180, 196), he prefers to speak of “parabiblical literature” to designate a more inclusive corpus where similar hermeneutical phenomena are at work in a wider vari-ety of literary forms . However, certain meaningful literary distinctions can be made between rewritten biblical literature and at least two other related and relatively self-cohering literary corpora—namely, the Targums (which would be included as a subclass of rewritten Bible) and the pesharim (which would be excluded as interpretive works that do not present their interpretations by reconstituting biblical texts) . Here, therefore, discussion of rewritten Bible as a hermeneutical phenomenon relates to the hermeneutical traits observable in conjunction with the literary features already discussed . Consequently, there is relatively little danger that “rewritten Bible,” used in these respects, will slide unavoidably into the kind of diffuse and indefinite phrase against which Bernstein cautions .

43 . Cf . ibid ., 195 . According to Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 99–100, 116, rewritten Bible stems at least from Chronicles’ renarration of Samuel–Kings . But one might well wonder whether Deuteronomy does not constitute the prototypical rewriting of Jewish Scripture (Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 778) .


independent documents . Instead, as he finds it advantageous, Paul works an independent document into the argument that he himself is originally constructing and prosecuting . Thus, although Paul may retell biblical pe-ricopes, these retellings serve a rhetorical purpose in Paul’s letters, and the retellings themselves constitute only part of the support that Paul invokes for this rhetorical purpose . By contrast, in rewritten Bible texts, the retell-ing itself bears complete responsibility for communicating the message of the person who creates the retelling .

Hence, in terms of Paul’s letters as literary wholes, instead of func-tioning so much as as a poet, promulgator, or storyteller, 44 Paul functions more as a rhetor, or one who shows his audience a good resolution for a rhetorical situation . 45 Thus, with this formal divergence at the level of whole documents, the main point of comparison between Paul’s letters and rewritten Bible texts lies at the point of the hermeneutical phenomena that operate in both cases, especially when documents in both corpora take up the same biblical text(s) . 46

That is, with rewritten Bible texts, the related though distinct frame-work in terms of which they recast a series of individual biblical texts lies on the surface of a given rewritten Bible text itself (for example, in its nar-ratival, legal, or poetic distinctiveness from its base text) . By contrast, on

44 . Lloyd F . Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14; cf . Bruce N . Fisk, “Paul among the Storytellers: Rereading Romans 11 in the Context of Rewritten Bible” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Boston, November 22, 2008) 2 . Of course, on occasion, Paul explicitly distances himself from the practice of rhetoric, not least in the Corinthian correspondence (e .g ., 1 Cor 1:18–2:16; 2 Cor 4:1–2; Gal 1:8–10; Col 2:4; see F . F . Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 84–86; James D . G . Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians [BNTC 9; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993] 48–50; Anthony C . Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Com-mentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 162–223) . Yet, his goal in doing so appears simply to be distancing himself from what he considered to be ignoble, sophistic manipulation (Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians, 48–50; Richard B . Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005] 12–13; Corin Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric: An Exegetical and Socio-historical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 [Library of New Testament Studies 402; London: T . & T . Clark, 2009] 176–77, 179–80; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 162–63, 205, 208–9, 218–21) . For, Paul regularly attempted to commend to his audiences arguments that would demonstrate what he held to be true (e .g ., 1 Cor 2; 2 Cor 5:11–15; Gal 4:17–18; see Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric, 174–75, 178; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 162) . Thus, speaking of Paul as rhetor and his let-ters as including rhetoric in this later sense differs markedly from the substance of what Paul denies about himself and his mode of interacting with the churches to whom he ministered (Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 162) . Instead, Paul sees himself directly addressing his audiences and, as necessary, using every legitimate means at his disposal to encourage them to remain faithful to their common Lord (cf . Mark D . Given, “Paul and Rhetoric: A Sophos in the Kingdom of God,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle [ed . Mark D . Given; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010] 175–200) .

45 . See Bitzer, “Rhetorical Situation .”46 . Peter Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Mov-

ing Beyond a Modernist Impasse,” WTJ 65 (2003) 270–72; Fisk, “Paul among the Storytellers,” 1–3, 21 .


the Pauline side, this framework often remains implicit . Hence, when Paul rewrites Scripture in terms of this framework, he tacitly may appeal to the cognitively prewritten framework that he perceives himself to share with his audience (for example, of יהוה’s mighty acts in Jesus) . 47 Still, despite a fundamental similarity in how each corpus interacts with its controlling framework, rewritten Bible remains a largely “under utilized resource” in the study of Paul’s uses of Scripture . 48

Therefore, as an attempt to contribute to study in this area, the task presently at hand entails considering Paul’s quotations of the prophetic in-junction ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; “let the one who boasts boast in the Lord”) . 49 This quotation may depend on 1 Kgdms 2:10; Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24); or, perhaps, on both . Two rewritten biblical texts significantly rework these biblical passages (L.A.B. 50:2; Tg. Neb. Jer 9:22–23), and within the context of these texts’ rewritings, Paul’s quotations in 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 show how Paul has cognitively rewritten, if not fully and physically reinscribed, around Jesus these two parts of Israel’s salvation-historical narrative (1 Kgdms 2:10; Jer 9:23 [MT, OG; English: v . 24]) . 50

Rewriting Prophets

An Initial Look at the Corinthian Correspondence

In 1 Cor 1:31, Paul uses the familiar phrase καθὼς γέγραπται (“just as it is written”) to introduce the scriptural quotation ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω . 51 In 2 Cor 10:17, Paul also exactly reproduces the statement ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω, excepting the postpositive δέ (“and, but”), but he refrains from introducing this material with any formulaic phrase

47 . Aristotle, Poet. 1453b, 1454b, 1455b, 1460a; Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (trans . Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak; rev . ed .; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) 37, 41–42, 44–46; Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (ed . and trans . Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G . Marshall; 2nd ed .; New York: Continuum, 2006) 268–306; N . T . Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 38–44 . This prewritten framework, therefore, exists in itself before the reader encounters the text, but in the reader’s encounter with the text, this prior framework becomes subsequent to the text as the reader cognitively rewrites the text in terms of his or her antecedent framework .

48 . Fisk, “Paul among the Storytellers,” 2 .49 . Unless otherwise noted, the translations given in this article are my own . Also, unless

otherwise noted, Greek NT quotations are reproduced according to NA27 .50 . Regarding the brevity of Paul’s recastings in 1–2 Corinthians, cf . Aristotle, Poet. 1450b .51 . BDAG, s .v . γράφω §2 .b; BDF §130 .1; Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-

Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007) 129; Richard B . Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 35; C . F . D . Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed .; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960) 27–29; Gail R . O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality,” JBL 109 (1990) 262–63; Daniel B . Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testa-ment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 576; cf . Christopher D . Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 253 .


such as he uses in 1 Cor 1:31 . Nevertheless, because (1) these statements exactly mirror each other and (2) Paul explicitly introduces the injunction in 1 Cor 1:31 with the formula καθὼς γέγραπται, assuming that 2 Cor 10:17 also constitutes a biblical quotation is quite safe, despite this text’s indirect presentation . 52 But not even in the case of 1 Cor 1:31, where Paul demar-cates the quotation with an introductory formula, does he also name the document from which he takes this quotation .

Quoting Jeremiah?As the NA27 margin witnesses, these quotations are normally thought to derive from Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24), which reads: 53

כי אם־בזאת יתהלל המתהלל הׂשכל וידע אותי כי אני יהוה

עׂשה חסד מׁשפט וצדקהבארץ כי־באלה חפצתי נאם־

יהוה׃ ס

ἀλλ’ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ θέλημά μου, λέγει κύριος .

But let the one who boasts boast in this: understanding and knowing me, because I am יהוה, who works steadfast love, justice, and righteousness on the earth, for in these things I delight, declares יהוה .

52 . Peter Balla, “2 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Tes-tament (ed . G . K . Beale and D . A . Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 779; David Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2/47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 136 . Indeed, Hays (Conversion of the Imagination, 16 n . 37) and Margaret Thrall (A Critical and Exegeti-cal Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [ICC; Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 2004] 2:652) also suggest that Paul might have reasonably expected the Corinthians to detect a scriptural quotation here simply based on his earlier quotation of this text to them in 1 Cor 1:31 .

53 . NA27, 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; cf . Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 15; J . Ross Wagner, “ ‘Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written’: A Call to Boast Only in the Lord (1 Cor 4 .6),” NTS 44 (1998) 283 . Unless otherwise noted, HB texts reproduced here follow the text of BHS . Also, unless otherwise noted, LXX and OG texts reproduced here follow the text of Rahlfs . On the use of the infinitive absolute in the Hebrew text of Jer 9:23, see GCK §113 .e . Jeremiah 9:23 occurs in a miniature section of didactic prose (Jer 9:22–25 MT, OG; English: vv . 23–26; see Ronald Ernest Clements, Jeremiah [ed . Patrick D . Miller Jr .; Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988] 66) . This section’s first part (vv . 22–23 MT, OG; English: vv . 23–24) gives instruction about boasting, and the second part prophesies the demise of those for whom circumcision is merely a fleshly act (vv . 24–25 MT, OG; English: vv . 23–24) . In this context, the inappropriate boasting described in the first section (vv . 22–23 MT, OG; English: vv . 23–24) essentially amounts to the uncircumcision and failure to keep the covenant described in the second section (vv . 24–25 MT, OG; English: vv . 23–24; Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998] 101; cf . F . B . Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC 16; Nashville: Broadman, 1993] 122; C . F . Keil, The Prophecies of Jeremiah [trans . David Patrick and James Kennedy; K&D 8; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006] 119–20) . In turn, this miniature, didactic section as a whole (Jer 9:22–25 MT, OG; English: vv . 23–26) falls within the larger section of Jer 7–10, which indicts Israel for her failures and threatens punishment for these transgressions (Leslie Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary [1st ed .; OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008] 92–132; John Bracke, Jeremiah [Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westmin-ster John Knox, 2000] 74–102; Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 103–30; Keil, Jeremiah, 95–130; J . A . Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 271–339; cf . Bruegge-mann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 77–108) .


As in the contexts where Paul appropriates the saying ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω in his Corinthian letters, critiques concerning speech stand throughout the larger section of Jer 7–10, which subsumes Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) . 54 When using this saying in 1 Cor 1:31, Paul presents this citation as the goal and probably at least partial result (ἵνα) of (1) be-lievers’ inclusion in Jesus and (2) Jesus’ becoming the various things Paul lists in the previous verse—namely, σοφία . . . ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις (1 Cor 1:30; “wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”) . 55

54 . Cf . Roy E . Ciampa and Brian S . Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed . G . K . Beale and D . A . Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 699 . The people are scolded for trusting in דברי הׁשקר (“the words of deception”) about the temple (Jer 7:1–15), but the people’s conduct had nullified whatever kind of refuge that house might have provided (Allen, Jeremiah, 96; Bracke, Jeremiah, 75–79; Brueggemann, Com-mentary on Jeremiah, 77–78; Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 105; Keil, Jeremiah, 96–100; Thompson, Jeremiah, 277–80) . Moreover, Jeremiah rebukes the people for having acted במעצות בׁשררות לבם ,Jer 7:24; in the counsels and stubbornness of their evil heart; see also Jer 7:21–28; Huey) הרעJeremiah, Lamentations, 109; Keil, Jeremiah, 104) . Indeed, they did so to such an extent that אבדה ,Jer 7:27; the truth perished and it was cut off from their lips; Thompson) האמונה ונכרתה מפיהםJeremiah, 290) . The people clung to deception (Jer 8:5), and although יהוה listened for it, they did not confess their sins (Jer 8:6; see Allen, Jeremiah, 109; Bracke, Jeremiah, 86; Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 87–88; Keil, Jeremiah, 107–8; Thompson, Jeremiah, 298) . Instead, they ac-cepted as wisdom the words of those who were themselves deceitful (Jer 8:8–9), and the people propagated this deceitful “wisdom” with each other (Jer 9:4–6, 8; see Allen, Jeremiah, 110, 116; Bracke, Jeremiah, 87, 93–94; Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 88, 96–97; Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 113, 118; Keil, Jeremiah, 109–11, 115–16; Thompson, Jeremiah, 299–300, 309–10) . However, the יהוה himself, אלהים אמת (Jer 10:10; “the true God”), stood wiser than all of the wise men (Jer 10:7; see Allen, Jeremiah, 126–27; Bracke, Jeremiah, 99; Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 103–5; Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 126; Keil, Jeremiah, 123–24; Thompson, Jeremiah, 328–30) . Nevertheless, the people’s rulers did not have access to יהוה’s wisdom because את־יהוה ;see Allen, Jeremiah, 131; Bracke, Jeremiah, 101 ;יהוה Jer 10:21; they did not inquire of) לא דרׁשוBrueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 107; Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 129; Keil, Jeremiah, 129–30; Thompson, Jeremiah, 335–36) .

55 . BDF §443–44; Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 85–86; Hays, First Corinthians, 33; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (ed . Gordon Messing; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956) §2974–83 . At least on an initial reading, the relationship that the ἵνα (“so that”) clause in 1 Cor 1:31 has to the preceding verbs ἐστε (“you are”) and ἐγενήθη (“he became”) is ambiguous (v . 30) . However, Paul’s point about the actualization of the biblical text that he quotes in 1 Cor 1:31 suggests that one should understand this ἵνα clause in relation to both the independent and the qualifying, relative clauses that precede it . This actualization then renders God’s acts in Jesus effective for the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:30) .

By relating his quotation to the realities of the Corinthians’ situation (1 Cor 1:30; ἐξ αὐτοῦ . . . ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη . . . ἡμῖν, “from him, you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us”), Paul affirms that his quoted text has been enacted at least partly (ἵνα of result) . In addition, by representing this text as an antecedent, scriptural witness to the Corinthians’ situation (1 Cor 1:31; καθὼς γέγραπται, “just as it is written”), Paul also presents this situation as at least part of the intended outcome of his quoted text (ἵνα of purpose) . For Paul, a scriptural affirmation is only ever the lightest gloss for a divine affirmation regarding the Christian com-munity (Rom 4:23–25; 15:4; 1 Cor 9:9–10; 10:11) .


Consequently, this quotation and the construction of 1 Cor 1:30 itself would ask the reader to understand 1 Cor 1:30 in relation to Jer 9:22 (MT, OG; English: v . 23) in order to contrast what seem to be good grounds for boasting—human wisdom, strength, and wealth—and what are, in fact, good grounds for boasting ἐν κυρίῳ—σοφία . . . ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις (1 Cor 1:30; “wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”) . 56 Thus, Paul is implicitly reading Jer 9:22 (MT, OG; English: v . 23) as evoking some of Jesus’ activities to the end specified in Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) . 57

Similarly, in 2 Cor 10:17, the interpretive logic would appear to be very much like what is at work in 1 Cor 1:31 . Hence, regarding Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24), the primary difference between 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 would be that, in 2 Cor 10:17, instead of grounding boasting ἐν κυρίῳ explicitly in what Jesus has become for his people, Paul directly connects his citation with his own opponents who were commending themselves (2 Cor 10:12, 18) . In both these texts from the Corinthian correspondence, however, reading Paul’s quotation as deriving from Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; En-glish: v . 24) works quite well .

Quoting 1 Kingdoms?Nevertheless, as viable as this reading appears, because Paul does not name the biblical source from which his quotation comes, he may have drawn it from some other, parallel text . Besides Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24), the major candidate for this source text is 1 Kgdms 2:10 . 58 For, diverging slightly from the MT, 1 Kgdms 2:10 includes verbatim the wording of Jer 9:23 (OG; English: v . 24) at the point where Paul may have found the quota-tion that he used in his Corinthian letters . 59 With this inclusion, the end of Hannah’s prayer at Samuel’s dedication reads (1 Kgdms 2:10): 60

56 . Fee, Pauline Christology, 130; O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31,” 262; Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 187 . Indeed, the only term that Paul further qualifies in his list in 1 Cor 1:30 is σοφία (“wisdom”), which is the only point at which the lists from 1 Cor 1:30; Jer 9:22 (OG; English v . 23) coincide . Thus, in this respect also, Paul may have meant the added ἀπὸ θεοῦ to differentiate the wisdom that Jesus became for his people from the wisdom on whose basis Jer 9:22 (OG; English: v . 23) prohibits boasting .

57 . Cf . O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31,” 264 and n . 85 .58 . Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 15–17; idem, First Corinthians, 34–35; Arkady

Kovelman, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 in Philo and Paul,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10 (2007) 169, 171–72; Wagner, “Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written,” 283–86; cf . Capes, Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, 136 n . 216 .

59 . Cf . Fee, Pauline Christology, 130 n . 115 .60 . In this passage’s slightly broader context, Hannah weans Samuel (1 Kgdms 1:23) and

brings him to Eli, thereby dedicating him to the Lord’s service (1 Kgdms 1:28) . Fraught with the motif of the reversal of fortunes (1 Kgdms 2:1, 3–8; Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 16; idem, First Corinthians, 34–35; Wagner, “Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written,” 284, 286), Hannah’s prayer at Samuel’s dedication is the first occasion in 1 Kingdoms’ narrative at which Hannah thanks the Lord for giving her a son (cf . 1 Kgdms 1:18) . As such, this prayer of thanks and exultation at the dedication of Hannah’s son is also a reversal of Hannah’s earlier prayer of grief that had resulted from her barrenness (1 Kgdms 1:2, 5–8, 10–16) .


κύριος ἀσθενῆ ποιήσει ἀντίδικον αὐτοῦ, κύριος ἅγιος . μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ φρόνιμος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ̓ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν τὸν κύριον καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς . κύριος ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐβρόντησεν, αὐτὸς κρινεῖ ἄκρα γῆς καὶ δίδωσιν ἰσχὺν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ ὑψώσει κέρας χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ .

The Lord will make weak his opponent . The Lord is holy . Let not the intelligent boast in his intelligence, and let not the powerful boast in his power, and let not the wealthy boast in his wealth, but rather let the one who boasts boast in this: understanding and knowing the Lord and doing justice and righteousness in the midst of the earth . The Lord went up into the heavens and thundered: he himself will judge the heights of the earth, and he gives strength to our kings, and he will lift up the horn of his anointed one .

In addition to 1 Kgdms 2:10’s prohibition against boasting, especially re-garding ὁ φρόνιμος, Hannah’s prayer also includes another explicit warning against inappropriate speech: μὴ καυχᾶσθε καὶ μὴ λαλεῖτε ὑψηλά, μὴ ἐξελθάτω μεγαλορρημοσύνη ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν, ὅτι θεὸς γνώσεων κύριος καὶ θεὸς ἑτοιμάζων ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτοῦ (1 Kgdms 2:3; “Do not boast, and do not speak lofty things . Let not grandiloquence come out from your mouth because the Lord is a God of knowledge and a God who prepares his pursuits”) . 61 Hence, 1 Kgdms 2:10 could also have supported quite well Paul’s argu-ments against ostentatious rhetoric (1 Cor 1:31) and fractious opponents (2 Cor 10:17) .

Moreover, the reversal motif in Hannah’s prayer (1 Kgdms 2:1–10) would fit well with the reversal motifs that Paul develops . 62 First Corin-thians 1:18–2:5 is fraught with ironic twists and strange reversals that result in the vindication of Paul’s ministry of the gospel, which was ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως (1 Cor 2:4; “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”) rather than in what seemed to be πειθοί σοφίας λόγοι (1 Cor 2:4; “persuasive words of wisdom”), so that God’s power could be seen to triumph over human wisdom (1 Cor 2:5) . 63 Similarly, such a reversal nuance would fit nicely in 2 Cor 10:17, where Paul defends his and his as-sociates’ ministries against opposition from τινὲς τῶν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστανόντων (2 Cor 10:12; “certain ones of those who are commending themselves”) instead of allowing their commendation to come from the Lord (2 Cor 10:18) . 64 Those who seek prominence for themselves will find their status

61 . Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s “Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” with Latin Text and English Translation (AGJU 31; New York: Brill, 1996) 1087 .

62 . Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 699–700 .63 . Hays, First Corinthians, 36; cf . Wagner, “Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written,”

286 .64 . Cf . Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1997) 494; Murray J . Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 727–28; Simon J . Kistemaker, Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NTC 19; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 351; Colin G . Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corin-


reversed, as will those who have not sought prominence but who will re-ceive it from the Lord . 65

Therefore, either 1 Kgdms 2:10 or Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) could work very well as a source for Paul’s quotations in 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17 . 66 In addition, to a great degree, either source would work equally well with his argument, and Paul could even conceivably have intended to call to his more astute readers’ minds both 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) . 67 Consequently, rewritten versions of both 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) may illumine 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 . 68

Rewritten Bible Parallels

Among the broader literature, several interpretively centrifugal texts may resonate with 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24; e .g .,

thians: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 7; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 179, 181–82; Frank Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary (1st ed .; NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003) 230–37; Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 639–41, 653 .

65 . Despite these structural similarities, interpreting 1 Cor 1:31 (and, thereby, probably also 2 Cor 10:17) as a reference to 1 Kgdms 2:10 rather than Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) has one distinct disadvantage . That is, 1 Kgdms 2:10 (OG) uses language of φρόνησις rather than σοφία (Hays, First Corinthians, 35) . Of course, these two terms’ senses are closely cognate, but as a recurring term, σοφία plays an important role in Paul’s polemic in 1 Cor 1:18–2:5, whereas φρόνησις does not appear in this section . Indeed, in the Corinthian correspondence, φρον- lan-guage appears only to occur in 1 Cor 13:11 and 2 Cor 13:11 .

Still, 1 Kgdms 2:10 regularly adds ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω to 1 Sam 2:10 in a va-riety of witnesses, and when describing improper boasts in 1 Kgdms 2:10, some witnesses do read σόφος (“wise”) and σοφία in place of φρόνιμος and φρόνησις (e .g ., Latinber, Syro-hexaplarJ, Theodotion; see Alan England Brooke, Norman McLean, and Henry St . John Thackeray, eds ., The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906], 1 Kgdms 2:10) .

Generally, Paul seems to rely on an OG revision of a mixed text that affected the later recensions of Aquila, Symmachus, and possibly Theodotion (Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 137, 211, 255–57) . Not abnormal in this text are readings otherwise poorly attested in the Greek versions (ibid ., 255), from which Paul could feasibly have drawn his quotations in 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17, especially since Paul elsewhere does witness to a distinctly Theodo-tionic text (see Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon [ed . David Reimer; trans . Mark E . Biddle; OTS; New York: T . & T . Clark, 2002] 7) . In this sort of scenario, Paul could have precisely reflected his own text of 1 Kgdms 2:10, which contained σόφος and σοφία in place of φρόνιμος and φρόνησις . Yet, this scenario would merely put 1 Kgdms 2:10 on equal verbal footing with Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24), which would probably also still have included σόφος and σοφία for Paul . Consequently, even if Paul’s text of 1 Kgdms 2:10 did contain the terms σόφος and σοφία, evaluating 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 in light of both 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) would still be advisable .

66 . Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 699 .67 . Ibid . Possibly under Paul’s influence, the later 1 Clem . 13:1 also appears to have brought

these texts together, albeit somewhat more explicitly (Wagner, “Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written,” 284) .

68 . Hays, First Corinthians, 35; Wagner, “Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written,” 284; contra Fee, Pauline Christology, 130 n . 115 .


1 Bar 3:14; 2 Bar. 1:3; 14:12; 21:18; 25:4; 46:4–7; 48:9, 15, 17, 24, 31–32, 35, 50; 83:11–23; 84:2; 4 Bar. 1:6) . 69 However, because these centrifugal texts merely hook onto their biblical antecedents in order to launch their own, indepen-dent narratives, they do not seek to rewrite a biblical document with any observable persistence . Therefore, these centrifugal texts fall outside the bounds of the rewritten Bible category . Among the texts that do fall into this category, however, two particularly deal with 1 Kgdms 2:10 or Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24)—namely, L.A.B. 50:2 and Tg. Neb. Jer 9:22–23 . 70

69 . In addition, Josephus, Ant. 10 .132–33, 141–42, may echo Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) to some extent, and Jewish Antiquities is a centripetal text that has certainly been im-portant for several articulations of the shape of the rewritten Bible category itself . Presently, however, one may well doubt whether Josephus, Ant. 10 .132–33, supplements the reworking of narrative material on which Jewish Antiquities usually concentrates (cf . Josephus, Ant. 10 .141–42) by inserting prophetic material specifically taken from Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) . Josephus rarely imports material from the prophets, and his explicit references to Jeremiah are especially scarce (H . W . Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus [ed . Michael E . Stone; CRINT 2/2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 212, 223) . Thus, against the backdrop of Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24), Josephus, Ant. 10 .132–33, 141–42, suffers quite definitely from what Richard Hays has called the “vanishing point problem .” That is, “[a]s we move farther away from overt citation, the source recedes into the discursive distance, the intertextual rela-tions become less determinate, and the demand placed on the reader’s listening powers grows greater . As we near the vanishing point of the echo, it inevitably becomes difficult to decide whether we are really hearing an echo at all, or whether we are only conjuring things out of the murmurings of our own imaginations” (Richard B . Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989] 23; idem, Conversion of the Imagination, 166) . Hence, for this study’s purposes, space can be better spent working with the two rewritten Bible texts that do certainly take up 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) rather than ferreting out whether Josephus, Ant. 10, also reworks one of these texts .

70 . The Vorlage of Tg. Neb. 1 Sam 2:10 appears to depend more directly on the MT than on the OG . Hence, Tg. Neb. 1 Sam 2:10 probably does not interpret the material parallel to 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17 found in 1 Kgdms 2:10 . Despite some of the marked similarities that they share with this description of “rewritten Bible,” however, some scholarship has excluded Targums from this corpus based on how these different categories of literature handle the biblical texts that they rework (Philip S . Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum,” in International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament Congress Volume 11: Salamanca 1983 [VTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1985] 20; Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 175; cf . Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 100–18; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 10–11) . That is, even at their freest, the Targums normally represent every word in the biblical text in order, no matter how much extra material they may also include (Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules,” 20) . By contrast, some rewritten Bible texts follow “the[ir] source [biblical text] . . . relatively closely without very many major insertions or omissions” (Brooke, “Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms,” 32–33), but even so, some portions of the text may be skipped or reordered (Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules,” 20; Brooke, “Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms,” 32–33; Segal, “Rewritten Bible,” 24) . In any case, however, the rewritten Bible text will continue as a recognizable reconstitution of its source text . Tov (“Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts,” 351) cites 4QJubilees as an example of a text that has added too much material to be considered rewritten Bible . Yet, despite the substantial addi-tions that this work includes, Jubilees’ reader can still clearly perceive Genesis as the subtext that underlies 4QJubilees .

Moreover, specifically with respect to the Targums, one can still reliably distinguish the Targums from the other rewritten Bible works . Thus, given the great degree of similarity between rewritten Bible and Targumic literature, insofar as the Targumic literature interprets


Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Biblical Antiquities)Within his larger narrative from Adam’s genealogy to Saul’s death, Pseudo-Philo omits and radically condenses a good deal of material, including some portions of material from 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms) . 71 Despite these con-densations, Pseudo-Philo includes a fairly detailed retelling of the events surrounding Samuel’s birth, part of which recounts 1 Kgdms 2:10 . In this re-telling, however, he places the admonition about boasting into the mouth of Peninnah, Elkanah’s other wife (L.A.B. 50:2), rather than Hannah, Samuel’s mother, through whom the utterance comes in 1 Kgdms 2:10: 72

the translation of the biblical text that it provides (Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rab-binic Rules,” 20), the Targums may be retained as a self-cohering subset of the larger class of rewritten Bible . That is, rewritten Bible may or may not represent each word of a given biblical text, and rewritten Bible may or may not present its own material in the same sequence as the source material has in the biblical text . Conceived as a larger class, rewritten Bible would remain indefinite in relation to these two properties . Yet, specifying mandatory, or nearly man-datory, positive values for both these properties, in addition to those that already characterize the larger class of rewritten Bible, would define the smaller subclass of Targums . In this way, Targums and other rewritten Bible texts may be treated more holistically and integratively, while still being distinguishable in their relations as child class and parent class (cf . Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 175) .

71 . Daniel J . Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed . James H . Charlesworth; 1st ed .; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 2:297; Nickelsburg, “Bible Re-written and Expanded,” 107 . Although Liber antiquitatum biblicarum probably stems substan-tially from the Christian period, the work appears to show very little influence, if any, from this feature of its historical setting (Peter Enns, “Expansions of Scripture,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism [ed . D . A . Carson, Peter Thomas O’Brien, and Mark A . Seifrid; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 1:88; Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 252–53) . Instead, the narrative generally and naturally coalesces around Is-rael’s greatest leaders as יהוה uses them to deliver his people, and throughout the narrative, Pseudo-Philo regularly addresses Israel’s oppression and her continued existence (Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 242–43; Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” 107–8) . Pseudo-Philo repeatedly affirms that יהוה will surely rescue Israel because of the covenant that יהוה made with her (Enns, “Expansions of Scripture,” 1:90–92; Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 241–42, 244; Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” 2:107–9; cf . Har-rington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 2:300–301) . Along the way, a deuteronomic relationship between sin and judgment, righteousness and blessing becomes evident, particularly in how the behavior of Israel’s leaders affects the nation (Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 2:301; Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” 110) . At the same time, Pseudo-Philo generally evidences a lack of legal interest (Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” 110) . Citing John R . Levison, “Torah and Covenant in Pseudo Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in altestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (ed . Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger; WUNT 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 111–27; favorably, Enns (“Expansions of Scripture,” 1:90–91) suggests that halakic material is not especially prominent in Pseudo-Philo simply because, for Pseudo-Philo, law has become intertwined with covenant, on which Pseudo-Philo does place significant emphasis . In addition to faithfulness toward this covenant, Pseudo-Philo encourages unmitigated trust in יהוה as the source of Israel’s deliverance (Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 245) . Thus, Pseudo-Philo exhibits an eschatological focus, but how messianic this focus is remains unclear (Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 2:301; Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 247, 250) .

72 . Unless otherwise noted, references to and translations of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum come from Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 1–194 . Where Pseudo-Philo’s biblical text does appear to have differed from the MT, especially in Joshua and Samuel, Pseudo-Philo may reflect a Lucianic or Samaritan reading of Pseudo-Philo’s probably Hebrew Vorlage (Har-


Et sic cum quotidie improperaret ei, et Anna contristaretur valde, et esset timens Deum a iuventute sua, factum est ut superveniente die bono pasche cum ascenderet vir eius ut sacrificaret, insultans Fenenna Anne dicens: Non est dilectus mulieris, si diligat eam vir eius aut Pulchritudinem illius. Ne gloriatur in specie sua Anna, sed qui gloriatur glorietur cum videt semen suum ante conspectum suum. Et quando inter mulieres non ita fuerit fructus ventris eius, in vanum fiet dilectio. Quid enim profuit Rachel, quod dilexit eam Iacob? Et nisi datus fuisset ei fructus ventris illius, in vanum fuerat dilectio eius. Et eum audisset hec Anna, dissoluta est anima eius, et perfus aest lacrimis.

And so [Peninnah] would mock [Hannah] daily, and Hannah was very dismayed, but she was God-fearing from her youth . When the holiday of Passover approached and her husband went up to sacrifice, Peninnah insulted Hannah, saying, “A wife is not beloved even if her husband loves her or her beauty . Let Hannah not glory in her appearance; but she who glories, let her glory when she sees her offspring before her . When for a woman there will not thus be present the fruit of her womb, love will be in vain . For what did it profit Rachel that Jacob loved her? Had not the fruit of her womb been given her, his love would have been in vain .” When Hannah heard these words, her soul grew faint and it was poured out in tears .

In Penninah’s mouth, the admonition about boasting from 1 Kgdms 2:10 becomes a means by which Penninah can attempt to establish her own superiority and favored status over Hannah . What beauty Hannah has, Penninah marginalizes as being almost completely irrelevant . Beyond this claim, Penninah also suggests that any love that Elkanah might have to-ward Hannah because of her beauty is also ultimately devoid of any sig-nificance unless Hannah can have a child . 73 As a supporting parallel to their own situation, Penninah cites the biblical account of the difficulty that Rachel had in bearing children, despite how much Jacob loved her (Gen 29:1–30:24; 35:16–29) . 74 Thus, L.A.B. 50:1–2 sets Penninah in the place of Leah, whom Jacob did not love (Gen 29:31) . Also like Leah with Jacob, Penninah hopes that her bearing of children will engender greater love for her from Elkanah (Gen 29:32, 34; L.A.B. 50:1) . 75 This prospect of Elkanah’s loving Penninah more because of the children that she has borne leaves Penninah in the position of the one who may actually boast because she vi-det semen suum ante conspectum suum (L.A.B. 50:2; “sees her offspring before her”) . At the same time, before Hannah hangs the terrible prospect that she may actually lose whatever modicum of beauty she has and, because of her inability to bear children, whatever love she engenders from Elkanah .

rington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 2:298–99; Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 255) . Consequently, rather than suggesting that Pseudo-Philo inserted part of Jer 9 into 1 Sam 2 completely inde-pendently of any of the other textual traditions potentially available to him, one may more reasonably surmise that, as he produced his own narrative, Pseudo-Philo knew something like the expanded text of 1 Kgdms 2:10 (ibid ., 1086–87) .

73 . Ibid ., 1086 .74 . Ibid ., 1086–87 .75 . Ibid ., 1086 .


This whole situation distresses Hannah (L.A.B. 50:2), and Elkanah seeks to comfort her . In the biblical narrative, Elkanah’s chief means of doing so is the rhetorical question, 1) הלוא אנכי טוב לך מעׂשרה בנים Sam [1 Kgdms] 1:8; οὐκ ἀγαθὸς ἐγώ σοι ὑπὲρ δέκα τέκνα; “Am I not better to you than ten sons?”) . By contrast, in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, Elkanah attempts to reassure Hannah by asking Nonne meliores sunt mores tui super decem filios Fenenne? (50:3; “Is not your character worth more than the ten sons of Penninah?”; cf . L.A.B. 50:2) . 76 This manner of comforting Hannah fits well with Pseudo-Philo’s larger agenda of encouraging Israel to remain true to its God in its oppression . For, just as Hannah does eventually bear a son (L.A.B. 51:1), so Israel can wait for God’s assured deliverance (cf . L.A.B. 51:3–6) . 77

Read within this context, L.A.B. 50:2 particularizes 1 Kgdms 2:10’s injunction against boasting . The original text in 1 Kgdms 2:10, although detailed and individual, is also generic: anyone who is φρόνιμος, δυνατός, or πλούσιος falls under its force . But the task of connecting this statement to any particular application in the broader context of the passage—that is, primarily to Penninah (1 Kgdms 1:2; 2:1–10)—is left to the reader . By contrast, Pseudo-Philo represents the command as being directed to a par-ticular individual in the narrative—namely, Hannah (L.A.B. 50:2) . Because of her beauty and how Elkanah loved her (L.A.B. 50:1–2), Hannah at least temporarily becomes aligned with the φρόνιμος, δυνατός, or πλούσιος, but Penninah cautions her that this favored status cannot last and cannot be truly significant while Hannah’s barrenness persists (L.A.B. 50:2) . 78

In giving such an interpretation, Pseudo-Philo initially puts L.A.B. 50:2 in opposition to the narrative of 1 Kgdms 1–2 . For 1 Kgdms 2:10 functions in its own narrative as a statement of Hannah’s vindication over Peninnah after Samuel’s birth (see 1 Kgdms 2:1–10) . But Pseudo-Philo reverses this setting to make the warning about boasting from 1 Kgdms 2:10 serve Penninah’s interests before Samuel’s birth (L.A.B. 50:2) . Nevertheless, at Samuel’s birth, the whole narrative in this section of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum begins to reverse, and this reversal culminates, as in the OG, with Hannah’s own vindication over her opponent . Thus, Pseudo-Philo’s intermediately oppo-sitional reading of 1 Kgdms 2:10 itself becomes reversed so that, ultimately, Pseudo-Philo’s use of 1 Kgdms 2:10 is entirely in Hannah’s favor .

Indeed, the reworking of 1 Kgdms 2:10 in the mouth of Peninnah in L.A.B. 50:2 may be even more in Hannah’s favor than is 1 Kgdms 2:10 pre-cisely because the statement about boasting comes from Peninnah . Penin-nah’s exaltation over Hannah is thereby made that much greater and more explicit . Consequently, the reversal in Hannah’s favor also becomes more drastic . Hence, in this narrative reversal, the particularizing reading origi-nally applied to Hannah becomes directed against Peninnah, although no reworking of 1 Kgdms 2:10 reappears in Hannah’s favor after Samuel’s birth .

76 . Ibid ., 1088 .77 . Cf . Ibid .78 . Cf . Ibid ., 1087 .


In the end, this reversal serves Pseudo-Philo’s major emphases well . Specifically, Pseudo-Philo’s reconstructed narrative heightens how יהוה de-livered Hannah through Samuel, one of the major figures in Israel’s his-tory . Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah do not figure as major characters in the history of יהוה’s dealings with Israel . However, Samuel’s role was much more prominent, and Pseudo-Philo apparently chose to include and rework the narrative about Samuel’s birth because of how this narrative shows יהוה working through the yet-unborn and infant Samuel to bless those who are faithful and humble (L.A.B. 50:3) . This impulse strongly accords with Pseudo-Philo’s general tendency to organize his narrative around Israel’s great individual leaders . By so doing, he commends afresh the faithfulness of Israel’s God to the covenant people, whom this same God would eventually be faithful to deliver, by whatever means he might designate, just as he was faithful to deliver Hannah through Samuel’s birth .

Targum of the Prophets on Jeremiah

Drawing instead on Jer 9:22–23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24), Tg. Neb. Jer 9:22–23 substantially retains the biblical substructure from the context of Jer 7–10 and reads as follows: 79

כדנן אמר יוי לא ישתבח שלמה בר דוד חכימא בחכמתיה ולא ישתבח שמשון בר מנוח גיברא בגיברותיה לא ישתבח אחאב בר עמרי עתירא בעתריה אלהין בדא ישתבח דמשתבח דחכים

ואיליף למידע דחלתי ארי אנא יוי עבידנא חסדא ודין דקשֹוט וזכו בארעא ארי באלין

רעוא קדמי אמר יוי׃

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man, Solomon, the son of David, boast in his wisdom, and let not the strong man, Samson, the son of Manoah, boast in his strength, nor let the rich man, Ahab, the son of Omri, boast in his riches . But let him who boasts boast because of this: that he is wise and teaches men to know the fear of me, that I am the Lord . I practise steadfast love and true justice and righteousness in the land, for there is pleasure before me in these, says the Lord .

79 . Unless otherwise indicated, Targum texts cited here are reproduced from Stephen A . Kaufman, ed ., Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2005), and Targum translations are reproduced and supplemented from Robert Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (ed . Kevin J . Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara; ArBib 12; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986) . The more major addi-tions and interpretive insertions (e .g ., Tg. Neb. Jer 8:5, 16, 21–22; 10:11) that the Targum provides for Jer 7–10 tend to strengthen and coincide well with impulses already located within this pericope . Much of the material in Targum of the Prophets probably dates from before a .d . 70, and its present form evidences several traits typical of other documents in its genre (ibid ., 28–29, 35–38) . These traits include a tendency toward increasing the precision of the biblical text being interpreted and the maximization of applications for different, though parallel, parts of the biblical text (ibid ., 22–24, 26) . Like Pseudo-Philo, Tg. Neb. Jeremiah stresses God’s faithfulness to his people and their continuing relationship with him, even during periods of punishment (ibid ., 23, 30) . Even so, the Targum stresses the necessity of obedience to the law and the reward that awaits those who keep the law’s commandments (ibid ., 23, 31–32) .


This Targum section evidences two particular adaptations of Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) . First, similarly to the reading in Liber antiquitatum bibli-carum, the Targum particularizes the generic characterizations that Jer 9:22 (MT, OG; English: v . 23) uses to describe the classes of people who should not boast . 80 That is, the text identifies Jeremiah’s reference to the “wise” ”σοφός) as recalling Solomon and Jeremiah’s reference to the “strong ;חכם) ἰσχυρός) as recalling Samson . Given how these people figure in the ;הגבור)broader corpus of Jewish Scripture, these associations are quite under-standable (e .g ., Judg 14–16; 1 Kgs 4–11; 2 Chron 9) .

Explaining the final alignment of Ahab with the “wealthy” (עׁשיר; πλούσιος), however, might initially give one pause . 81 Yet, for the targum-ist, at least two biblical texts may have helped connect Ahab to the notion of wealth . First, Ahab’s pithy response to Ben-hadad’s emissaries, אל־יתהלל Kgs 20:11; “let not him who girds himself boast like him who 1) חגר כמפתחungirds himself”) strongly parallels the warning against boasting pres-ent in Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) . Moreover, the military response that follows this verbal bow shot allows Israel to escape the plundering that Ben-hadad’s emissaries had promised (1 Kgs 20:2, 5–6)—that is, the response allows Israel to retain what possessions they have . Second, the account about Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21) may also have provided a rea-son for the targumist to link Ahab to the “wealthy” (עׁשיר; πλούσιος) in Jeremiah . The interjections of Solomon, Samson, and Ahab, therefore, all provide specific examples of people who might have had cause to boast in one area, but whose prominence in this area eventually failed them (cf . Philo, Spec. 1 .311) . 82

Building on this stress, the Targum introduces its second significant modification of Jeremiah by commending boasting (1) in wisdom—appar-ently “wisdom” that is derived from Torah—and (2) in teaching others to fear the Lord . From Jeremiah’s boast in יהוה’s character and righteous acts [Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24)], the targumist moves to boasting in

80 . This quotation accords with the expanded text of the Targum of the Prophets, but see also the text critical notes by Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (YOS 14; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1907) 134; Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 76 notes w–y . Nevertheless, according to Hayward (ibid .), this reading still represents 𝔐 for the Targum to the Prophets .

81 . Codex Reuchlinianus also includes Korah, the son of Izhar, with Ahab as dual refer-ents for the rich man who should not boast (ibid ., 76 n . z) . In keeping with the previous policy of using 𝔐 for the Targum here, however, Korah does not figure in this article’s main discussion . Were Korah to be included in this discussion, his example would be very similar to the example Ahab provides of someone whose possessions gave him no ultimate benefit (Num 16:26, 32) .

82 . As in Pseudo-Philo, this reading reinforces the Targum’s aim of reassuring Israel that its God will be faithful to deliver it, despite whatever mistakes its leaders might make . Despite his wisdom, Solomon’s wives eventually turned his heart away from Israel’s God (1 Kgs 11:4) . Despite his great strength, Samson’s involvement with Delilah led to his imprisonment and his own death as he slew the Philistines who were praising Dagon (Judg 16:20–30) . Despite his wealth, Ahab could not avoid the judgment pronounced on him because of the death of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:19; 22:34–38) . Calling to the reader’s mind the stories of these men’s lives, the Targum stresses the futility of the things against which Jeremiah opines .


the commendation of יהוה’s character and acts to others in order that these people may also fear יהוה, presumably just as the targumist does . Thus, the targumist seems to have understood the commendation of יהוה’s character and acts to be a logical extension or the fullest expression of the knowledge of יהוה about which Jeremiah spoke .

The Cornithian Letters among Rewritings

Thus, Pseudo-Philo’s reading of 1 Kgdms 2:10 demonstrates God’s deliver-ance of Hannah through Samuel, and the Targum to the Prophets’ reading of Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) exalts the commendation of Israel’s God . In this context, what elements become more apparent in Paul’s interpretations of the clause ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17)? Or, what features of Paul’s interpretations in these texts stand in sharper relief regarding the hermeneutically constitutive role that Jesus played for Paul?

Most particularly vis-à-vis the other reworkings of 1 Kgdms 2:10; Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) examined here, 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17 consti-tute two Pauline portrayals of Jesus as the sole locus around which he urges the Corinthians to understand their situation within the implicit narrative of the mighty acts of Israel’s God . To clarify the nature of this portrayal, one may begin with what is perhaps the most significant modification that Paul makes to his citation source . Besides shifting the substantival participle forward from its final position in 1 Kgdms 2:10; Jer 9:23 (OG), Paul’s most obvious modification of his source is shifting the object of the preposition ἐν from the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτῳ to the noun κυρίῳ . 83 But because Paul discusses both θεός (the Father) and Χριστός around 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17, the specific referent of κύριος to Χριστός is somewhat ambigu-ous . 84 Still, in 1 Cor 1:30, Paul describes the Corinthians as being, by God’s agency (ἐξ αὐτοῦ = ἐξ θεου; see 1 Cor 1:29), ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις (“in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”) . Thus, the Corinthians’ inclusion in the Χριστο ́ς, who has be-come such things for them, strongly suggests that 1 Cor 1:31’s reference to boasting ἐν κυρίῳ refers most immediately to boasting in Χριστός and, with only the smallest step beyond this boast, to a boasting in the θεός who has thus acted toward the Corinthians through and in relation to this Χριστός . 85

83 . See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 186–87, 262; cf . Balla, “2 Corinthians,” 780; Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 699 . According to Brooke, McLean, and Thackeray (The Old Testament in Greek, 1 Kgdms 2:10) and Robert Hanhart et al . (eds ., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931] Jer 9:23), the reading ἐν κυρίῳ (“in the Lord”) is not extant in the Greek manuscript tradition as a variant reading in these respective texts .

84 . Cf . Capes, Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, 136; contra Fee, Pauline Christology, 130 n . 113 .

85 . Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 87; cf . Capes, Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, 134–35; Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 700 . Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 87 n . 41) rightly recognizes that the phrase ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται (“in order that, just as it is written”) is elliptical and assumes the verb from the main clause so that the sense of the construction is ἵνα


In 2 Cor 10:13, Paul reports that θεός (“God” = the Father) had assigned τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος (“the measure of the sphere”) in which Paul and his associates had been operating . Thus, boasting only within this sphere (2 Cor 10:13–16) could seem to be the boasting ἐν κυρίῳ to which 2 Cor 10:17 refers and in which the κύριος could be θεός . 86 However, based on Paul’s normal usage patterns, one would typically expect an instance of κύριος outside a biblical quotation to refer to Jesus, as the term appears to do quite clearly in the preceding context (2 Cor 10:8) . 87 Consequently, when Paul follows his biblical quotation in 2 Cor 10:17 with the interpretation that οὐ . . . ὁ ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν δόκιμος, ἀλλὰ ὃν ὁ κύριος συνίστησιν (2 Cor 10:18; “that one who commends himself is not esteemed but he whom the Lord commends is”), Paul’s choice to speak of ὁ κύριος rather than θεός suggests that he does indeed connect the κύριος in 2 Cor 10:17–18 with Jesus . 88 Thus, in 2 Cor 10:17 also, Paul sets Jesus, to some extent, as the chief bearer of the purposes of θεός (cf . 2 Cor 10:7–16) . 89

Of course, if one interprets the reference to Israel’s God in Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) within Paul’s monotheistic theology, then reading κύριος as a reference to Jesus still does not wholly equate Jesus and Israel’s God . 90 For Paul distinguishes between θεός (God) and κύριος (Jesus) frequently enough in the Corinthian letters (e .g ., 1 Cor 8:4–6; 2 Cor 11:31) . But even while thus distinguishing these two, Paul holds them radically together, elsewhere even weaving Jesus into the heart of the paradigmatic Jewish confessional formulation about Israel’s God (1 Cor 8:4–6; cf . Eph 4:4–6; Phil 2:5–11; Col 1:11b–20) . 91

[ἦι] καθὼς γέγραπται (“in order that [it may be] just as it is written”) . This dependence suggests, in comportment with the implications of the quotation itself, that this ἵνα clause’s adverbial force primarily qualifies the Corinthians’ inclusion in Jesus rather than Jesus’ becoming to the Christian community any or the last of the things that Paul lists him as becoming in 1 Cor 1:30 .

86 . K . Wong, “ ‘Lord’ in 2 Corinthians 10:17,” LS 17 (1992) 243–53 .87 . Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 471–72; James D . G . Dunn, The Theology of

Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 250–51; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 87 . Although κύριος (“Lord”) regularly refers to θεός in the NT’s quotations of Jewish Scripture, Paul already displays a tendency in 1 Cor 1:31 to read 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; En-glish: v . 24) in relation to Jesus . Therefore, his doing so in 2 Cor 10:17 also would be thoroughly consonant with this other reading .

88 . On this point, see Christopher Butler, Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2003) 235–39; Robin P . Fawcett, A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 4/206; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2000) 42–43; John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 70–81; Tarni Prasad, A Course in Linguistics (New Delhi: Prentice Hall, 2008) 78–79 .

89 . Balla, “2 Corinthians,” 780; Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans . Kendrick Grobel; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007) 1:124; Capes, Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, 136; Kistemaker, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 351–52; Matera, II Corinthians, 235–36; Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 653 .

90 . Fee, Pauline Christology, 130 n . 114 .91 . On this matter, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and

Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 60–106; Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 266–93; Fee, Pauline Christology, 16–20; George


Hence, Paul does not intend to advocate boasting in a god other than the Father, as though the object of the boast were now Jesus and not יהוה . Rather, understanding the reference in 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (MT, OG; English: v . 24) to Israel’s God as he has acted through his appointed Χριστός, Paul’s boasting ἐν κυρίῳ is a specific kind of boasting in Israel’s God . 92 Indeed, from Paul’s perspective, in Jesus, Israel’s God has acted most fully in his steadfast love, justice, and righteousness (Jer 9:23 [OG, MT; English: v . 24]; cf . 1 Cor 1:30) . Thus, like Pseudo-Philo, Paul reconstitutes the miniature drama about boasting in 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (OG, MT; English: v . 24) in relation to a specific, key figure . 93 However, rather than reconstituting this boasting drama around a key figure of one scene in the history of יהוה’s interaction with his people, as Pseudo-Philo did with Samuel, Paul places at the center of this particular unit the one whom he sees as the key figure of the whole drama—namely, יהוה himself as he has definitively acted in Jesus .

In this reading, Paul’s opponents then naturally become those who boast improperly and whom, therefore, 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (OG, MT; English: v . 24) address . 94 Those enamored with Sophistic rhetoric im-plicitly become the focal points of the admonition against boasting in wis-dom (1 Cor 1:18–2:16; 2 Cor 10:10) . Similarly, those who may boast outside their own area of ministry find themselves particularly cast in the role of those who boast illegitimately in the extent of their labor and, hence, the strength that labor has demanded (2 Cor 10:13–16) . Therefore, at this point, these interpretations in the Corinthian correspondence particularly resonate with the ones that the Targum of the Prophets proposes for some

Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (ed . Donald A . Hagner; rev . ed .; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 448–63; N . T . Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1991) 120–36 . Here, the point is well taken that, for Paul, the term “kyrios is . . . a way of distinguishing Jesus from God” and that an “assessment of Paul’s christology as we find it in his principal letters has to be couched accordingly” (Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 254, 260, emphasis original) . As already noted, Paul does frequently distin-guish between θεός (the Father) and κύριος (Jesus), and indeed, in themselves, Paul’s uses of 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Jer 9:23 (OG, MT; English: v . 24) in 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17 may primarily exhibit an agentive relationship between θεός (the Father) and κύριος (Jesus) . Yet, taken together with the datum that Paul only ever quotes texts about יהוה with reference to one or the other of these persons tells very strongly in favor of his perception of their unity (see Capes, Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, 90–160) . Hence, although this datum may only gain significance as it emerges from a group of Pauline texts rather than from this or that individual text, Paul’s absolute reserve in applying this language to anyone besides the Father and Jesus must also, in discussions about Pauline Chistology, weigh heavily on the balancing side of observations about the distinctions that Paul draws between these two figures .

92 . Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 192; Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 56–136; idem, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 3; Minneapolis

rewriting prophets in the corinthian correspondence: a ... · stark: rewriting prophets in the...

Documents