NT misquotes of the OT

[robert j]

...What is interesting to me is that in the commentaries I've seen, no-one seems to try to explain what Paul is doing in those passages where he is 'misquoting' scriptures. E.g. "Paul was working from a variant of Scriptures that we don't have" or "Paul must have been working from memory so got it wrong by accident".

I've seen such explanations when Church Fathers provide odd quoting from earlier texts, but not really for Paul in the study notes. They explain what he meant, but not why he did it in the first place. Do you know if there is an 'official' scholarly explanation for what Paul is doing here? Or is it left as "that's just what they did in those days, so not unexpected and doesn't need explanation"?

The best reference that I have found to help understand Paul’s creative use of the Scriptures is, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 1989, by Richard B. Hays, (then) Assoc. Professor, Duke University [highlighting mine] ---

“In Paul we encounter a first-century Jewish thinker who, while undergoing a profound disjuncture with his own religious tradition, grappled his way through to a vigorous and theologically generative reappropriation of Israel’s Scriptures.” (Hays, p. 2)

“… the issues raised by his (Paul’s) readings are fundamentally hermeneutical issues, because of the undeniable gap between the “original sense” of the Old Testament texts and Paul’s interpretation ..." (Hays, p. 6)

Paul’s letters were occasional and primarily address issues that he faced with each congregation --- questions, challenges to his authority and teaching, and compensation. Paul had apparently related the details of his Jesus Christ --- as found in the scriptures --- on his initial evangelizing visit. He only occasionally and briefly reminded the congregations of these details in his letters as they were useful in his arguments.

Based on my own studies, and also at least in part supported by Hays, in Paul’s letters the scriptures are used to provide some information about the death of his Jesus Christ, but the information is not presented as a foretelling of those events. However, Paul clearly used the Scriptures as a foretelling of his own efforts, of the gathering together of assemblies in his own time, ---

"What Paul finds in Scripture, above all else, is a prefiguration of the church as the people of God … In short, Paul operates with an ecclesiocentric hermeneutic" (Hays, p. 86).

Of course Paul also used the Scriptures to construct several aspects of his own life and backstories, as I have outlined before on this forum.

In most of his book, I think Hays provides a brave and steely-eyed evaluation of the evidence in terms of Paul’s very creative and generative use of the Scriptures. It’s not until the last chapter that --- at least from my point of view and in my own words --- Hays embarks upon his apology tour, ‘hey, I may have written some scary shit about Paul, but I’m still in the Club’ ---

"Does Paul offer a good model of how to interpret the Bible?" (Hays, p. 179)

"The question of appropriateness of Paul’s readings of Scripture can be considered more precisely if the issue is broken into three components:
1. Are Paul’s specific interpretations of scripture materially normative?
2. Are Paul’s interpretive methods formally exemplary? …." (p. 180)

"… I would argue that the only theologically appropriate response to our study of Pauline hermeneutics is to answer “yes” to both questions 1 and 2 … His letters help us to understand both what the Old Testament means and how it should be read … Paul exhorted his readers to become imitators of him (1 Cor, 4:16, 11:1, Phil. 3:17). Surely to imitate him faithfully we must learn from him the art of reading and proclaiming Scripture" (p. 183).

I certainly part ways with Hays here.

[GakuseiDon]

I think there is a general sense that "this sort of thing happened a lot," though I am not sure to what extent this general sense is "the reason" for the tendency. At least Sanday and Headlam point to the Psalm and suggest the source of the variant, but yes, it may be more common in the commentaries to make suggestions about the church fathers than about apostles and evangelists.

I guess it struck me that the analysis of the Church Fathers' use of scripture included wondering why the Fathers 'got scripture wrong' -- i.e. there was a value judgement implicit in the analysis of Church Fathers' use of scripture -- whereas I haven't seen that kind of analysis in Paul's use of scripture. Given that the study notes I have seen have been mostly by Christian scholars, it's natural that they aren't motivated to see Paul as 'wrong'. Paul is 'inspired' to misuse the Old Testament, not 'he simply got scripture wrong'! So I guessed that from their perspective there is nothing to explain. I just kind of wondered how that affected the analysis of misuse, but it was more of an idle thought on my part. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge on all this!

[GakuseiDon]

The best reference that I have found to help understand Paul’s creative use of the Scriptures is, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 1989, by Richard B. Hays, (then) Assoc. Professor, Duke University [highlighting mine] ---

Thanks robert j, but my point isn't that Paul was creative in his use of scriptures -- he obviously was. But was there any push-back on what he did? Did anyone back then say "Hey, Paul got scripture wrong!" Do any scholars today say "Hey, Paul simply got scripture wrong!"

It just struck me that I've seen detailed analysis on why the Church Fathers misquoted scripture and other sources, including things like 'they were quoting from memory but got it wrong', but nothing similar about Paul's use of scripture (other than that he had access to apocrypha no longer extant). There seems to be a lack of value judgement in the study notes there, i.e. 'Paul was simply wrong'. It was more an idle thought though, a corona thought if you will.

[robert j]

Thanks robert j, but my point isn't that Paul was creative in his use of scriptures -- he obviously was. But was there any push-back on what he did? Did anyone back then say "Hey, Paul got scripture wrong!" ...

It seems that those influencing the Galatians did, and apparently some within his Galatian congregation did as well.

The core of Paul's argument against the need for circumcision is based upon the Scriptures. And certainly the Scriptures provide the opposing point-of-view --- that is, circumcision is clearly required in order to belong with the chosen people of God.

ETA: Paul's use of the Scriptures went beyond just creative. I like Hays' phrase that Paul's use was a "generative reappropriation of Israel’s Scriptures”

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks robert j, but my point isn't that Paul was creative in his use of scriptures -- he obviously was. But was there any push-back on what he did? Did anyone back then say "Hey, Paul got scripture wrong!" ...

It seems that those influencing the Galatians did, and apparently some within his Galatian congregation did as well.

You're right, of course. I'm sure that Paul's opponents thought that Paul misused scriptures. I didn't express my question well. I meant people trying to rationalise why Paul seemingly made up his own quotes from scriptures.

Take Paul's change of "the Redeemer shall come to Zion" to "come out of Zion", for example. The study notes seem to suggest that Paul was influenced by Psalms to make the change. But has anyone ever argued that Paul simply misremembered the passage? Once Paul's writings were regarded as inspired, that would become an unlikely option back then. But I haven't seen that argument made in modern times either (though that may only be because I haven't read enough scholarly work on the topic.) That's just one example.

[robert j]

You're right, of course. I'm sure that Paul's opponents thought that Paul misused scriptures. I didn't express my question well. I meant people trying to rationalise why Paul seemingly made up his own quotes from scriptures.

Take Paul's change of "the Redeemer shall come to Zion" to "come out of Zion", for example. The study notes seem to suggest that Paul was influenced by Psalms to make the change. But has anyone ever argued that Paul simply misremembered the passage? Once Paul's writings were regarded as inspired, that would become an unlikely option back then. But I haven't seen that argument made in modern times either (though that may only be because I haven't read enough scholarly work on the topic.) That's just one example.

In my notes, I ran across a copy of this one page, attached only to a copy the title page and relevant bibliography page. It’s from Reinventing Paul, by John G. Gager, Oxford Univ. Press, 2000, page 149 ---

"Paul’s mode of argumentation was consistently biblical … At virtually every turn he cites a biblical text, often several. Many have seen his interpretations of these texts as willful, even perverse. The literary critic Harold Bloom is beside himself. “Paul is so careless, hasty, and inattentive a reader of the Hebrew Bible that he rarely gets any text right.” He speaks of Paul’s “will to power over a text”, of “weird exegesis” and of “plain howlers.” **

[** Gager’s citation of Bloom is from, Bloom, Poetics of Influence, New Haven, 1988.]

Gager goes on to imply (and he's not entirely wrong) that it's a Jewish thing ---

"Here Bloom is surely in agreement with other Jewish readers of Paul, ancient and modern. They do not find Paul's exegesis convincing." (p. 149)

But was Bloom right --- was Paul hasty, careless, and inattentive? Or was Paul sometimes citing from a faulty memory?

I don’t think so. I think Paul had an exceptional knowledge and keen understanding of the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures. Which made Paul all the more skillful at appropriating (hijacking) the Scriptures to serve his entrepreneurial work and to convince his Gentile patrons that they could be full participants with the chosen people of the great and ancient god of the Jews without the messy and painful rite of circumcision or following all those inconvenient rituals.

To use Hays again, in pages 131-149 of his book I cited earlier in this thread, Hays discusses Paul’s generative use of Exodus 34, and allusions to other passages of Scripture, to develop his extended riff on the veil of Moses in 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:4. Here’s just one example —- how Paul changed the text of Exodus 34:34 to better fit his argument [bracketed entry mine] ---

“But whenever he turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” [2 Cor 3:16] is a free quotation of Exod. 34:34. In the LXX, the text reads, “But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he removed the veil until he went out.”... Paul has tightened up the sentence by removing the phrases “to speak with him” and “until he went out”, he has omitted specific mention of Moses, and—most significantly, he has replaced the verb eisporeueto (went in) with epistrepse (turns to), a word often used to describe conversion, as in 1 Thess. 1:9 ... Furthermore he has shifted the verb’s tense and mood from the imperfect indicative to aorist subjunctive, thus allowing the clause to be read as a statement of general possibility rather than as a narration of past action ... he has shifted the verb removed from the imperfect to the present tense. These are far-reaching manipulations, and they are systematically calculated to facilitate Paul’s metaphorical appropriation of the text ... The changes in wording should not be explained away by appealing to some hypothetical textual tradition not otherwise attested or by saying that Paul was just quoting from memory. Paul’s doctored citation simultaneously shows evidence of minute attention to detail and treats the text with great freedom in order to get it to say what he is convinced it means. In short, he is removing the veil from the text, presenting it in a light which will enable his readers to see in it the same metaphorical sense that he sees.” (Hays, pp. 146-147)

[GakuseiDon]

In my notes, I ran across a copy of this one page, attached only to a copy the title page and relevant bibliography page. It’s from Reinventing Paul, by John G. Gager, Oxford Univ. Press, 2000, page 149 ---

"Paul’s mode of argumentation was consistently biblical … At virtually every turn he cites a biblical text, often several. Many have seen his interpretations of these texts as willful, even perverse. The literary critic Harold Bloom is beside himself. “Paul is so careless, hasty, and inattentive a reader of the Hebrew Bible that he rarely gets any text right.” He speaks of Paul’s “will to power over a text”, of “weird exegesis” and of “plain howlers.” **

[** Gager’s citation of Bloom is from, Bloom, Poetics of Influence, New Haven, 1988.]

Gager goes on to imply (and he's not entirely wrong) that it's a Jewish thing ---

"Here Bloom is surely in agreement with other Jewish readers of Paul, ancient and modern. They do not find Paul's exegesis convincing." (p. 149)

Perfect! That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about, that I don't remember coming across personally, undoubtedly because my reading on this is very basic. Thanks for that, robert j!