Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:00:38.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Dan Cohn-Sherbok
Affiliation:
The University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent

Extract

For some time scholars have recognised that Paul's exegesis of Scripture was influenced by rabbinic hermeneutics. As early as 1900 H. St. John Thackeray argued that Paul utilised rabbinic methods of interpretation to confute the Jews. In a number of cases, he wrote, particularly where the original sense of Scripture is not adhered to, ‘we may undoubtedly see the influence of his rabbinic training in the use to which the Old Testament is put and the inferences drawn from it.’ In 1911 H. Lietzmann described Paul's treatment of the desert sojourn in 1 Cor. 10.1–11 as ‘the Haggadic method’, implying a comparison with rabbinic method. Following this same line of argument A. F. Pukko in 1928 asserted that Paul utilised Hillel's seven principles of rabbinic exegesis. According to Pukko, ‘As an interpreter of the Old Testament Paul is above all a child of his time. The methods of interpretation and deduction which he learned in the Rabbinical school emerge frequently in his work.’

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 117 note 1 Thackeray, H. St. J., The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan and Co. Limited, 1900), p. 186.Google Scholar

page 117 note 2 Lietzmann, H., An die Galater, Tubingen, 1911.Google Scholar

page 117 note 3 Pukko, A. F., ‘Paulus und das Judentum’, Studia Orientalia, Helsingfors, 1928, pp. 64ff.Google Scholar

page 117 note 4 ibid., pp. 86–7.

page 117 note 5 Marmorstein, A., ‘Paulus und die Rabbinen’, ZNTW 30, 1931, pp. 271285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 118 note 6 Bonsirven, J., Exégèse Rabbinique el Exégèse Paulinienne (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1939), 348.Google Scholar

page 118 note 7 Klausner, J.From Jesus to Paul’, Expository Times, 1944, pp. 5455.Google Scholar

page 118 note 8 Doeve, J., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Van Gorcum and Co., 1953), p. 99.Google Scholar

page 118 note 9 Ellis, E. E., ‘A Note on Pauline Hermeneutics’, New Testament Studies, Vol. 2, 19551956, 127133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 118 note 10 Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), p. 38.Google Scholar

page 118 note 11 Amsler, S., L'Ancien Testament dans L'Eglise (Neuchâtel, 1960), p. 55.Google Scholar

page 119 note 12 Schoeps, H., Paul (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 39.Google Scholar

page 119 note 13 Müller, H., ‘Der Rabbinisch Qal-Wachomer-Schluß in Paulinischer Typologie’, ZNTW, 58, 1967, p. 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 119 note 14 Jeremias, J. ‘Paulus als Hillelit’ Neotestamentica et Semitica, Eds., Ellis, E. E., Wilcox, M. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1969), p. 92Google Scholar; On the other side see Haacker, K., ‘War Paulus Hillelit?’, Das Institutum Judaicum der Universität, (Tubingen, 19711972), pp. 106120Google Scholar and Sandmel, S., Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 335376.Google Scholar

page 119 note 15 Hanson, A., Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology (London: SPCK, 1974), pp. 206207.Google Scholar

page 119 note 16 I have restricted this study to those letters whose authenticity is unquestioned, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galalians, Phillipians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon (see Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. (London: SCM Press, 1977). P. 431).Google Scholar

page 120 note 17 Midr. Ps. on L.1.

page 120 note 18 Ab. R.N. (Vers. II), XX, 22a.

page 121 note 19 Sifre Deut. Re'eh, §II8f., 98b.

page 122 note 20 San. 91b.

page 122 note 21 Ex. R.(Shemot III, 12).

page 123 note 22 Mek. (Beshallah, §6–7).

page 123 note 23 Ab. Zar. 2a.

page 123 note 24 Gen. R. 68.12.

page 124 note 25 Lam. R. (Introduction, 24f., 6b).

page 125 note 26 R. H. 16b.

page 125 note 27 ? Tanh. B. Hukkat, 61a.

page 125 note 28 Sifre Deut., Ekeb., §48f., 84b.

page 126 note 29 In the years between 130 and 160 A.D. R. Eliezer b. R. Jose The Galilean extended these thirteen rules to thirty-two, but he did no more than build upon Hillel and Ishmael's foundation.

page 126 note 30 Mishnah Betza, 5.2.

page 127 note 31 This example is given by J. Doeve, op. cit., p. 97.

page 127 note 32 Besides using this principle in exegetical contexts Paul frequently has occasion in theological discussion to resort to an inference of minor and major. For example in Rom. 5.8 Paul states that ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’ This refers to the present, and is the minor case. The next verse is an inference from the present to the future (the major case): ‘much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath (the final judgment) through him.’ This argument is continued by another similar inference from minor to major in verse 10: ‘For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled we shall be saved by his life.’

page 128 note 33 Pes. 68a.

page 128 note 34 There is a major difference between this rule and the analogy of expressions. In the latter case, the analogy rests on the use of identical words in different Scriptural verses. Here, however, a text is sought in which there is an analogous trait.

page 129 note 35 See Mielziner, M., Introduction to the Talmud (New York: Block Publishing Co., 1968), p. 166.Google Scholar

page 129 note 36 J. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 93.

page 130 note 37 M. Mielziner, op. cit, p. 175.

page 130 note 38 J. Jeremias, op. cit, p. 94.

page 130 note 39 Mekilta (Bo., 8).

page 131 note 40 Midr. Ps. on 40.1 (129a, §1).

page 131 note 41 Mek. Shirata, Beshallah, §4, p. 130; Mek. 3 Vol. II, p. 31.

page 132 note 42 Tan. d. b. El. p. 195.