Paul’s interpretation of scripture and the question of its relationship to rabbinic midrash have greatly occupied scholars both of New Testament and of rabbinics. Many previous studies have focused on the relationship between Paul and midrash, and almost all of them have assumed or reified a genealogical connection between these literatures, most often seeking to reconstruct Paul’s Jewish background from tannaitic sources. The present study criticizes and deconstructs this genealogical connection, while arguing that a critique of the genealogical assumption is no reason to abandon the effort to read Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim together. The introduction explains why studying these literatures comparatively is both compelling and fruitful, and also lays out the methodological constraints on such an inquiry. The comparative approach taken in this study considers Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim as part of a complex matrix in which scripture was instated as a fundamental source for legal and normative guidance in late antiquity over-against traditions independent of scripture (paradosis). It contributes to our understanding of Paul’s interpretation of scripture, which can be better understood in light of its parallels in tannaitic and Qumranic literature, with all their similarities and differences. The study of midrash also benefits from the comparative approach, which allows us (1) to trace a new history of midrashic exegesis, against existing descriptions that present it as teleologically stemming from Qumran exegesis; (2) to redefine and explain hermeneutic methods shared by these literatures; and (3) to reconsider a common understanding of midrashic hermeneutics as having developed under Alexandrian Hellenistic influence. The present study shows that, at least with regard to allegory, a different Hellenistic trajectory should be preferred. Qumran literature, Paul, and the Tannaim travail to build sacred communities based on a reworking of scriptural constructs, such as “Israel” or the “seed of Abraham.” The goal of Qumran literature is to define and negotiate membership in the yahad, an attempt to redefine the “seed of Israel” as an elite minority within the Jewish ethnos. The redefinition of community is based on eschatological convictions, argued and maintained by the reading of scripture as presented by the Teacher of Righteousness. Tannaitic hermeneutics can also be understood as an exegetical endeavor undertaken with a view to found and maintain a community on the basis of scripture, demarcating on scriptural grounds the true members of the community from those outside it and those on its borders. Paul interprets scripture with view to incorporate gentiles into a community by generating reading practices that allow them to see themselves as being addressed directly by Jewish scriptures and to understand how they must live in order to be included in eschatological redemption. Formulated as such, the comparative approach this study takes allows us to step beyond the misconstrued assumptions of “influence” or “shared heritage” that dominated Paul and midrash studies in the past. Focusing on scriptural hermeneutics as a fundamental facet of community building places two of Paul’s contemporaries—Philo and Josephus (who like Paul claimed a connection to the Pharisees)—on the margins of our study. Josephus does not work to build communities, but rather, mediates Jewish history to his Roman readership. (Josephus presents his motivation to write Antiquities, so as to provide “all of the Greeks” with the possibility to study the history of the Jews, their origins, form of government, laws and customs. Josephus especially notes that the book is meant communicate the antiquities of the Jews to “others”, see Ant. 1.1–9.) Though his rewriting of scripture in the first eleven books of Antiquities could also be studied comparatively with Paul’s interpretation of scripture, his work is of marginal relevance to the current study as he is not driven by the communal motivations central to it. Philo, similarly does not share the communal goals of Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim, and so his work will be discussed only when immediately pertinent to the matter at hand, most prominently in our study of allegorical interpretations. The present work features three case studies. The first (Chapter 1) undertakes a comprehensive mapping of the midrash-pesher technique (also known as the “pronominal pesher”). It argues that the sectarian sources in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Romans 10:5–13, and rabbinic literature have in common this technique, which is unknown to us from other sources. The chapter analyzes the different uses of this exegetical tool, and shows how a common method of interpretation is utilized toward different ends by these different literatures. The study of Romans 10:5–13 brings up another exegetical question: Paul constructs in Romans a contradiction between two passages (Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14) which he ultimately does not resolve. This places Paul outside common exegetical practices in Jewish antiquity that display a thorough commitment to solving scriptural contradictions. Chapter 1 offers a new reading of Romans 3, which like Romans 10, also constructs the difference between righteousness by trust (pistis) and righteousness by deeds as a scriptural difference, and shows it may be used to explain Paul’s choice to leave the contradiction unresolved in Romans 10. The chapter argues that Paul has an idea of scripture as consisting of two nomoi: a nomos of trust (pistis) and a nomos of deeds. These two nomoi coexist in scripture, but they are not without contradictions, which are for Paul a scriptural fact. Paul’s notion of Torah as two Torot is then compared to other notions of double revelation. Only in tannaitic literature do we find the notion of two Torot, and Paul is the first source to mention a similar terminology, though in different form and for a different end. I use Paul’s notion of double-Nomos to reconsider and problematize the history of the terms Oral Torah and Written Torah as current scholarship conceives of it. Chapter 2 also addresses hermeneutic method, and analyzes Paul’s allegory of Hagar/Sarah in Galatians 4. Paul’s allegory has often been presented as the binary opposite of midrash. The chapter presents a close reading of Paul’s exegetical work in Galatians 4, retraces a history of allegory in Jewish antiquity (in both Hebrew and Greek literatures), and finally returns to analyze the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot in tannaitic literature. The analysis shows that the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot—identified in the early twentieth century by Jacob Z. Lauterbach as allegories, a reading that was ultimately rejected by Daniel Boyarin—are indeed midrashic-allegories. Paul’s interpretation in Galatians, which we may call “genealogical allegory,” resembles that of Dorshei Rashumot on several counts and differs significantly from Alexandrian allegories. The chapter concludes that allegory should be thought of not as a hermeneutic in and of itself, but rather as a shift to a new denotation that is established and argued for on the basis of other exegetical arguments or assumptions. Midrash and allegory are thus not binary opposites but exist instead along a continuum. Chapter 3 shifts from hermeneutic method to a consideration of hermeneutic narrative: Paul’s hermeneutics of “unveiling” in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul brings together hermeneutics and eschatology, and claims that reading “in Christ” allows (for the first time) a full and complete understanding of scripture. This he presents through the depiction of the Christ community as (reading) with unveiled faces: “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory” (3:18). The chapter compares Paul’s interpretation of the Veil of Moses (Exodus 34, the main text that Paul interprets in 2 Corinthians 3) with other interpretations of the text in Jewish antiquity. It then considers Paul’s image of “unveiled faces” in the context of a parallel term that appears in tannaitic literature: “revelation of the face” (גילוי פנים). The term occurs several times in tannaitic literature in the context of scriptural interpretation, where it denotes a shameless reading of scripture. The chapter traces a counter-hermeneutics in tannaitic (and perhaps also earlier) sources, promoting a “veiled” reading of the scriptures. The possibility that the Tannaim are directly responding to Paul’s usage in 2 Corinthians 3 is raised, and then complexified. The final chapter presents the conclusions of this study, and synthesizes its implications for our understanding of Pauline hermeneutics as well as tannaitic midrash. It demonstrates the benefits of studying Paul’s letters, Qumran literature, and tannaitic midrash together, despite the lack of literary dependence between them.
Read more
18