Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation
technique in the Pauline Epistles and contemporary literature (Cambridge
U. Press: 1992), 396 pp., revision of author's 1990 Ph.D. thesis under
Moody Smith at Duke University.

Review by Shira L. Lander <lander@umbc.edu>


Overview of scholarship from 1650 to present

	Major "problem--" Paul's Biblical citations do not follow the
Hebrew "original" but are closer to the "Septuagint," except for where
they deviate from both.

	1. Since Paul's usage most parallels the Septuagint version of the
Bible, with no recourse to the Hebrew, that version represents the more
faithful Hebrew original than the Masoretic version of the Hebrew. (L.
Capellus--1650)

	2. Paul uses Bible creatively and he only quotes loosely; but he
had other sources (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) for which he was
"correcting"; these sources are no longer extant. This argument is more
nuanced in the nineteenth century, where authors begin searching the
differences in  Greek manuscripts and Aramaic Targumim to account for
variation. (Roepe--1827, Kautzsch--1869, Bohl--1873)

	3. The Masoretic text and its rabbinic precursors were intentional
second century Jewish corruptions of the original Hebrew text, which Paul
accurately quotes. They were transmitted in the Christian versions of the
Bible through Origen and Jerome. This also explains the closeness of NT
citations to the Samaritan Pentateuch.  (Whiston-1722)

	4. Paul was a creative biblical theologian who accurately
represents the original meaning of the Biblical text, rather than its
literal sense. (Dodd--1952, Hanson--1965)

	5. Any adaptation of Biblical texts is "inconsistent with
[contemporary] fundamental theological notions concerning the inspiration
and inerrancy of Scripture (10)," thus Paul never intentionally
manipulated texts. (Randolph--1782, Bonsirven--1939, Kaiser--1985)

	6. "Variants" in Paul's use of Biblical texts attest to the
fluidity of Hebrew and Greek Bible versions in the first century, as well
as the fluid history of those versions. Scholars cite the agreement
between Paul's 'variants' and later Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion which are revised to conform to a later Hebrew version.
(Vollmer--1895)

	7. Paul was quoting from memory, without access to written texts,
which accounts for his loose quotation technique. (Michel--1929,
Ellis--1957) 

	8. "Paul adapts the wording of the biblical text for his own
[theological, sociological, literary, rhetorical] purposes (17)."
(Beker--1980; Edersheim--1896, Silberman--1961, Franklin Johnson--1895;
Randolph--1782, James Scott--1875, Hays--1989; Koch--1986, Stanley)


How Paul's exegesis adapts the "original" Biblical citation for his own
rhetorical purposes:

	Romans 10.15 (=Isaiah 52.7)

Paul:	How beautiful. . . are the feet of those announcing the glad
tidings. . . of good things.

LXX/OG:	. . . as a season of beauty on the mountains, as the feet of one
announcing glad tidings of peace, as one announcing good things [for I
will proclaim your salvation, saying, "O Zion, your God shall reign."]

Lucianic Gk: How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of one announcing
the glad tidings. . . of good things. 

MT:	How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of one announcing glad
tidings of peace, as one announcing glad tidings of salvation, saying to
Zion, "Your God reigns."

Paul omits "on the mountains." Stanley writes: "only one manuscript in
the entire LXX tradition omits the phrase [on the mountains], while the
Pauline tradition is unanimous in its rejection of the same words. The
suitability of the omission to the Pauline context is readily apparent: a
localized geographical reference. . . is hardly appropriate in a passage
that emphasizes the necessity of a universal proclamation of the Christian
gospel. In the original context, on the other hand, the same words lend an
element of local color to the depiction of the divine herald approaching
Mt. Zion with the message of salvation, and would hardly be dropped in a
later revision [Stanley notes the agreement with the MT on this point]. 
The Pauline origin of the present omission would appear to be assured
(137)." 

The author has worked through the problems entailed in tracking down
Paul's Scriptural Sources, and he has given Paul's exegesis of these
passages thorough attention. However, given the elusive nature of the
status of Greek Jewish Scriptures in the first century, this reviewer
remains skeptical that such an endeavor is possible. Yet, if for no other
reason than to uncover the biases of previous efforts, Stanley's book is
recommended for those interested in Paul's use of Jewish Scriptures. 

--Shira Lander