The New Testament’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures
Allen (David)
This Page provides (where held) the Abstract of the above Book and those of all the Papers contained in it.
Text Colour-ConventionsDisclaimerPapers in this BookBooks / Papers Citing this BookNotes Citing this Book


Introductory Note


Publishers Book Description
  • The New Testament is full of hundreds of quotations of the Old Testament — the Bible of the first followers of Jesus — which profoundly influenced their thinking and behaviour. But the forms of the quoted texts and the manner in which they have been interpreted by the biblical writers vary in surprising ways. How can we understand some of the puzzles that we discover in examining the quotations?
  • This booklet, by an established expert in the field, offers an introduction to the New Testament’s use of the Jewish Scriptures. Drawing on a number of specific examples from the gospels and epistles it reveals the variety of written sources that New Testament writers chose and how their choices reflect the different interpretative methods available to them.

Author’s Introduction
  • The late New Testament scholar Martin Hengel is reputed to have said, ‘If all you know is the New Testament, you do not know the New Testament.’ This booklet seeks — in part — to endorse Hengel’s claim and considers the use of the Jewish Scriptures within the New Testament texts. We shall suggest that, to read the New Testament well, attending to its use of, and appeal to, the Jewish Scriptures is a requisite task. That is, when interpreting a New Testament text, a good initial question to ask is, ‘How are the Jewish Scriptures being used here’?
  • Why so? In part, it is because so much of the NT draws on the narratives and imagery of Israel’s Scriptures, and such connections therefore shape how the NT is composed and interpreted. Scriptural concepts such as covenant or promise, characters such as Moses or Sarah, or themes such as exodus or exile feature prominently across the NT testimony. But it also follows from the NT writers themselves being (primarily) Jewish and seeking to make sense of the Christ event in the light of their own scriptural testimony. Such Christological reflection develops from engaging with the NT writers’ (own) Scriptures and the imagery and concepts therein.

Contents
  1. Introduction – 3
  2. Sources: What Scriptural Texts are Used and in Which Form? – 9
  3. Methods: How are the Scriptural Texts Used in the New Testament? – 15
  4. Presenting Issues – 20
  5. Concluding Thoughts – 25
    For Further Reading – 26
    Notes – 28

The Author
Book Comment
  • Grove Books Limited, Ridley Hall Rd Cambridge CB3 9HU, December 2024.
  • Purchased and printed off the ‘downloadable version’ – pdf. Converted to HTML for reading on my Kindle.


"Allen (David) - The New Testament’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures"

Source: Allen (David) - The New Testament’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures

Paper Comment

See This Note1 (which is reproduced immediately below) for my Comments on this Book.

Write-up2 (as at 01/07/2025 11:31:12): David Allen - The New Testament’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures

Introductory Notes
  1. This is a short and cheap, but fairly dense, booklet3. It assumes the reader is very familiar with the Scriptures as they are often alluded to by verse without actual quotation. This can make it difficult to follow when reading while walking the dog.
  2. While the author deals with many interesting theoretical – and some technical – matters, the author’s primary aim is to persuade his readers that they will get more out of reading the NT if they know their OT – and take the time to follow up the quotations or allusions (without falling into what he calls ‘parallelomania’).
  3. This booklet is hardly the last word on the subject. The author is an expert and has written extensively on the topic. The booklet includes a brief bibliography, which isn’t the last word either. I didn’t (and don’t, apart from two4) have any of the works on the list, but did have others5 not mentioned.
  4. I’d read – and forgotten – a slightly eccentric OBT booklet on the topic by Roy Ginn6. Follow the link!
  5. I suppose the main utility of the Booklet is in the examples chosen, more of which later.
  6. In brief, the author points out the following important factors:-
    1. The NT authors were almost all Jews, steeped in the OT Scriptures. They therefore tried to make sense of the ‘Christ event’ in the light thereof. More on this later.
    2. The references to the OT in the NT presume familiarity on the part of the reader with the OT text and context.
    3. The NT authors use the expository techniques in common use at the time. Parallels are made with the Pseudepigrapha, Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
  7. While the author has a high view of Scripture, he’s not a dispensationalist and has some opinions the readers of this Note are unlikely to share.
    1. He believes that Daniel is pseudonymous and refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is hardly ‘out on a limb’ in academic circles.
    2. He thinks that 1 Corinthians is written exclusively to Gentiles so that when ‘our Fathers in the Wilderness’ are mentioned, he assumes this is because Israel according to the flesh has been replaced by ‘the Church’ (though he doesn’t actually use this term – just that ethnicity no longer has any relevance).
    3. The NT authors wrote in Greek and used the LXX7, the text of which was somewhat fluid and so gave the NT authors some quotational flexibility.
  8. In what follows, I pick out points of particular interest by Section of the Booklet, adding comments as I go along.
  9. I had added some contentious thoughts of my own at the end of this Note, but as these motivate my reading of this booklet, and reflect my concerns, I’ve moved them to the front – immediately below – lest the reader dies of exhaustion before getting that far. Not all my concerns are addressed by the Booklet.

My Own Contentious Thoughts
  1. The NT writers alluded to – or quoted from – the OT frequently, but what is their purpose in so doing, and is it as is often supposed by Christian apologists ancient and modern?
  2. I note first of all that there is a difference between – or at least no necessary connection between – the way the NT writers refer to the OT and the way modern (and ancient) believers might use it for devotional purposes, finding therein various levels of meaning – see my Note on "Ginn (Roy) - According to the Scriptures". For private purposes it doesn’t much matter whether the ‘echoes’ are really there or not.
  3. It is often suggested8 that there are thousands of OT ‘prophesies’ that have been fulfilled and that the probability of this happening is infinitesimal. If so, how come the Jews have never been convinced? Is it simply, as is sometimes claimed9, because Satan has blinded their eyes – hardly an argument to be applied in other contexts, IStM10.
  4. When we actually look at the quotations, they very rarely – IStM – follow the ‘Myles Coverdale’ injunction11 to consider the context. IStM that insisting that ‘this is what the Scripture really means’ (or is its deeper meaning, or some such) does a disservice. Faith is not a ‘work’ with the believer rewarded for believing six impossible things before breakfast12. After all, Biblical literalists tend to accuse ‘spiritualisers’ of not attending to the plain text of Scripture when they adopt fanciful exegesis. As is often said – ‘don’t try this at home’. I add here that it’s not just quotations that are at issue, but the use of Biblical passages
  5. I had wanted to discuss a couple of NT references to the book of Zechariah. Briefly …
    1. Zech 9:9 – Jesus evidently knew this ‘prophesy’ and adopted this mode of entry to Jerusalem to demonstrate his claim to kingship. So, it’s not a prophesy as such. There’s also some confusion in the NT as to whether he rode on one or two beasts, because of the Hebrew ambiguity in the ‘vav’ (‘and’ or ‘even’).
    2. Zech 11:13 – The potter and 30 pieces of silver. These were Zechariah’s wages and nothing to do with Judas. It wasn’t a prophesy. Also, Matthew 27:9 expands the quotation and attributes it to Jeremiah. There are various wheezes confidently posited – it was ‘spoken’ by Jeremiah, for instance, not written. But how is this supposed to work? How did Matthew know this, and how would his reader know how he knew it?
  6. So, how are we to explain things – assuming we don’t go along with those Jews who reject the Gospel on the grounds that the ‘Scriptural proofs’ are unsound?
  7. I have a couple of radical proposals:-
    1. Christianity is a ‘new religion’ that arose in the fertile soil of Judaism and the first believers – including, maybe, Jesus himself13 used their Scriptures to explain their response to what Jesus did and taught. That is, in response to ‘the Christ Event’.
    2. The NT writers – when they are arguing with Jews – use the standard argumentative techniques of the day which they hoped their interlocutors would find sympathetic and convincing.
  8. I find the first suggestion too radical, one to be adopted unless all else fails.
  9. The second suggestion has to be carefully handled. There can be valid ad hominem arguments14. Those with a high view of Scripture are not supposed to query some of Paul’s arguments even when they are – IStM – transparently dud15.

Sections and Main Points of Interest
  1. Introduction:
    • 1 Cor. 15.3-4: Jesus’ death and resurrection were In accordance with the Scriptures, but Paul cites no actual texts here – our author wishes he had!
    • Mark’s Gospel’s ‘retelling’ of the death of John the Baptist: Mark is usually the most succinct Gospel, but makes a point of stressing the connection between John the Baptist & Elijah. Our author sees parallels with this account and the travails of Elijah at the hands of Jezebel and John’s at the hands of Herodias, and between Ahab and Herod.
    • Eight ways the NT uses the OT:
      1. Formal Citation – ‘It is written’
      2. Allusion or Echo
      3. Catena of Passages
      4. Extended quotation
      5. Thematic as much as Lexical
      6. Appeal to a particular character
      7. Appeal to a wider narrative
      8. More subtle narratival invocation.
    • Choice of Text: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic? Can have interpretive significance. Citation from 1 Enoch in Jude 14-15 raises the question of what texts count as Scripture16 and for whom.
    • Matthew’s Birth Narrative: The parallels between Jesus and Israel.
      1. Micah 5.2 in Matt. 2:5-6: Is Bethlehem ‘the least’ (Hebrew) or ‘by no means the least’ (LXX; and do we care)?
      2. Matt. 2:23: ‘He will be called a Nazorean’: No extant text.
      3. ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son’ (Matt 2:15, Hos. 11:1): Clearly Hosea originally refers to Israel as God’s son, so it’s not a prophecy as such. But, it’s introduced as a parallel, as is the whole descent into Egypt and return.
      4. Immanuel: Matt. 1:23 / Is. 7:14. Second naming (Jesus + Immanuel: Salvation and Judgement). Again, this isn’t a prophecy as such. ‘Virgin’ is in the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew; a mistranslation. In any case Is. 7:14 refers to Isaiah’s time. But, again, it’s a parallel.
    • Basically, our author thinks that the OT background to the passages alluded to amplifies or clarifies what the NT authors have to say, without necessarily justifying that usage.
  2. Sources: What Scriptural Texts are Used and in Which Form? :
    • Consider the significance for the NT to explain:-
      1. Change to the text cited.
      2. Whether / how the OT context affects the NT usage.
      3. Whether a source even existed.
    • Original OT Location: German Vorlage.
      • Melchizedek: Ps. 110.1ff – Heb. 1:13, etc. The most quoted17 OT passage? A specifically Christian – rather than Jewish18 – Messianic ‘go to’ passage.
      • Luke 4:18-21 (Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll): Omission and inclusion – variation of the text19 to fit the situation.
      • Matt. 2:23: ‘He will be called a Nazorean’: No Vorlage. As noted above.
      • Mark 1:2-3: Attributed to Isaiah, but only part of it is (the rest is most likely Mal 3:1). Deceit, carelessness or vagueness? Fixed in later manuscripts.
    • Text Form:
      • Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT); but the NT writers wrote in Greek and used the Greek translations then in circulation.
      • Septuagint (LXX): Strictly-speaking no such thing as there were various textual forms20.
      • Deut. 32.4 has God personified as a Rock, but the LXX of this verse omits the reference. Our author says this implies that Paul – a Pharisee who knew Hebrew – had the Hebrew MT in mind21 when he suggests in 1 Cor. 10:4 that the Rock that followed the Israelites was Christ (an idea foreign to the OT text; more on which later).
      • While textual fluidity might allow a NT author to choose a text that suits his purposes, but he might not always have this option – he might only know one text22.
      • Ps. 40.6 / Heb. 10.5-6. MT of Ps. 40.6 has ‘You have given me an open ear’ whereas Heb. 10.5-6 has ‘a body you have prepared for me’ which reflects the LXX23 and is more suitable to the context in Hebrews.
      • Luke 22:37 and Is. 53:12 – Jesus was ‘counted amongst the transgressors’ – Isaiah is quoted to justify the ‘sword’, but Isaiah makes no mention of swords.
      • Quotations from the Song of Moses (Deut. 32.) in Hebrews: parallels between the handover from Moses to Joshua and to Jesus. I wasn’t sure of the relevance of this to the choice of Source.
      • 1 Cor. 15:3 ‘according to the Scriptures’ (mentioned earlier): no actual citations because there are none! A crucified Messiah was a contradiction in Jewish understanding, and the challenge to the early Church was to provide scriptural warrant. Our author suggests Dan 9:26 or Ps. 89:50-51, but neither is cited in the NT. But – overall – it’s an undisclosed amalgam of Scriptural texts and concepts that is appealed to.
      • Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15 (the Council of Jerusalem): Scriptural warrant is required for the inclusion of the Gentiles (rather than just the successes recounted by Peter, Barnabas & Paul). James cites the LXX version – which has the restoration of Israel leading to the inclusion of the Gentiles, the MT has it as the possession of the Gentiles. It’s possible that possession might ultimately lead to inclusion, but the author’s suggestion is that – rather than the LXX being a translation of the MT – it is a self-standing authority that the NT writers can appeal to when it suits their purposes.
  3. Methods: How are the Scriptural Texts Used in the New Testament? :
    • Two questions:-
      1. What techniques were open to the NT writers that were acceptable parameters for interpreting the OT in their time?
      2. Why are certain of these methods – rather than others – chosen by the NT authors?
    • Contemporary Methods of Reading and Interpreting Scripture
      • By ‘contemporary’, the author means – of course – the then contemporary methods open to the NT writer, not our own favoured methods!
      • He initially mentions several NT-contemporary methodologies; we can then look to see if there are any novel approaches introduced by the NT writers.
      • The contemporary methodologies are evidenced in the following sets of sources:-
        1. The Qumran Scrolls24.
        2. Helenistic Jewish interpreters, such as Philo of Alexandria25.
        3. The Pseudepigrapha26.
        4. What appears to be now called the ‘Rewritten Bible’: re-writing or reworking of Biblical texts; for example Jubilees27, a reworking Genesis / Exodus.
      • Reworking of the text seems to have been not only permissible but encouraged by various groups. Our author thinks this widens the scope of possible quotation or allusion.
      • Pesher:
        1. ‘Pesher’ means ‘interpretation’ and the Pesharim on the Prophets and Psalms are effectively verse-by-verse commentaries with application to the then present situation. The focus is on the fulfilment of prophecy28 in the here and now.
        2. The most famous Pesher is that on Habakkuk29. Our author focuses on this – in particular Hab. 2:4 as interpreted in Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11-12 and Heb. 10:38). Does the righteous person live by his own exercise of faith or as the result of Christ’s faithfulness? It seems the Qumran commentary has the faith to be in the Teacher of Righteousness30; all somewhat analogous to faith in Jesus. These ideas were evidently ‘in the air’, at least in some sects of Judaism.
        3. There are parallels to the NT approach – re-reading OT texts in the light of their own experience, in particular of Jeus Christ.
    • Why Read Scripture in a Particular Way?
      • Our author seeks to contrast the ways that Paul and James use the same Scriptures but find different messages therein. This all has to do with Abraham’s faith or faithfulness in Gen. 15.6 in Rom. 4.3, Gal. 3:6 and Jas. 2:23. He says that the consensus at the time was of faithfulness, so Paul’s approach is somewhat ‘innovative’. I note that the discussion is based on the Greek LXX. It looks to me as though the Hebrew is more to do with trust.
      • As an aside, "Goldberg (David) - This Is Not the Way: Jews, Judaism and Israel", which I’ve been reading in connection with Gaza and all that, claims that Judaism has always been a religion of deeds rather than beliefs31
    • Example: The Use of the Wilderness Narratives in 1 Corinthians 10.1–13
      • Our author thinks that Paul has taken a familiar text and reinterpreted it Christologically.
      • He takes it that it’s addressed to Gentiles, and considers – partly on this account – that there are various innovations, even though the core of the story is standard:-
        1. Israel is identified as the ancestors of32 Corinthian church.
        2. Israel’s wilderness experiences occurred ‘for us’ (1 Cor. 10.6). This is standard Pesher interpretation ‘ whatever happened in the past has relevance to33 the present situation.
        3. There is some reworking – with the ‘sustenance’ spiritualised.
      • Our author takes the reference to the ‘wandering rock’ being Christ as the most striking reworking. This is interesting!
        1. It seems this idea isn’t entirely innovatory34.
        2. Even so, what are we supposed to believe? That Christ (the pre-incarnate Jesus) wandered around in the wilderness for 40 years disguised as a rock? Or is the ‘was’ used figuratively – in the sense of ‘represented’ – as in ‘this is my body’?
  4. Presenting Issues :
    • I don’t know what the technical term ‘presenting issues’ means, but the author wants to know ‘What questions arise and what sort of matters should contemporary interpreters be attentive to when working with the biblical text?’.
    • He answers this by answering three further questions:-
      1. How Do We Know That the OT is Being Utilized?:
        • The author sees three options:-
          1. Direct signalling via a formal citation
          2. A phrase of image sufficiently familiar to the readership
          3. A more subtle echo.
        • For the ‘echoes’, the author cites Richard Hayes35, as below:-
          1. Availability: was the proposed source text available to the author and/or readers?
          2. Volume: how many points of connection are there? How loud is the mooted echo?
          3. Recurrence: does the author make similar appeal elsewhere?
          4. Thematic coherence: how does the echo accord with the overall argument being made?
          5. Historical plausibility: could the readers have reasonably understood or appropriated the echo?
          6. History of interpretation: have other subsequent interpreters heard the echo?
          7. Satisfaction: does the reading make sense—does it yield explanatory power?
        • The author thinks all this is somewhat subjective and thinks the ‘satisfaction’ criterion the most important – does it work and make an interpretive difference?
        • I suppose the real issue – if there is one – is whether it is us – the modern reader – who is finding these echoes useful for devotional reasons or whether either we – or the original NT writer – intends the echoes for doctrinal reasons.
      2. What ‘Extra’ Context Comes with the OT Citation?
        • There are basically two issues:-
          1. There’s an assumption that the readers ‘get it’, that they recognise the OT reference.
          2. There’s a question as to how much of the wider OT context of the reference is relevant in the NT context. Often none, in my view.
        • The author cites ‘1966’ and ‘To be or not to be’ as modern parallels. Not everyone will recognise the significance of 1966, and not everyone will remember or even know the context of Hamlet, nor will it often be relevant36.
        • The author cites 1 Cor. 10:7 where there’s reference to Israel ‘rising up to play’. This only has meaning if you know the original context.
      3. What About the OT Context — Can it Change?:
        • I’ve not had time to follow up the threads here, so just cite the first two paragraphs, which are worthy of consideration:-
        • When an OT text is cited or referenced in the NT, it assumes a new context. This raises a further question for us — can the meaning of an OT text change or develop when it is used by a NT author? Specifically, must its usage — and meaning — necessarily be consistent with the OT precedent, or can it instead progress or evolve? Or can it even change and do something quite different from its prior usage?
        • At the very least, something changes in/with the OT text when the NT author references it. Because the cited text assumes a different context, it is necessarily invested with new or fresh meaning, and with meaning that might seem inconsistent with the prior OT context. But at the same time, to restrict the interpretation of the prior Scripture to merely one sense or understanding is itself problematic. OT authorial intent does not imply a singularity of meaning. Even within its original context, the scriptural text will be understood differently by different readers.
    • Example: Scriptural Usage in Mark 14.62
      • Again, I’ve not had time to follow up the threads here.
      • The reference is to Jesus’ claim before the high priest that he is both Daniel’s Son of Man (Dan. 7:13) and the one who sit’s at YWHW’s right hand (Ps. 110.1).
      • The question is how much of the context of these two implied references is brought forward into the present context.
  5. Concluding Thoughts : These are worth quoting in full:-
    • Broadly speaking, the NT authors read the OT in the light of the Christ event, and mediated by their faith in Jesus Christ. This generated a significant element of what we might term ‘reading backwards,’ namely reading Jesus Christ into the text of the Jewish Scriptures in ways that yielded some surprising claims. The fourth gospel, for example, avers that Moses specifically wrote about Jesus (John 5.46), or Hebrews ventures that Moses suffered abuse for Christ whilst in Egypt (Heb 11.26). But equally their scriptural reading might operate forwards too, with Christ understood as the telos or goal of the Law (Rom 10.4). Either way, their Christological lens is the focal interpretive one.
    • This means that differences emerge between how respective NT interpreters read Israel’s Scriptures — and reminds us that there is not just one ‘correct’ meaning to an OT text. There is a plurality of OT textual meaning, and the NT writers’ varying usage of Israel’s Scriptures testifies to this.
    • Therefore, just because the NT author has read an OT text in a particular fashion, it need not mean that that is the only — or even the best — way to read it. But their reading can be helpful nonetheless; the NT authors enable us to understand the OT better, to recognize and assess the various interpretative options an OT text might (or might not) yield. We are encouraged to engage with the OT for ourselves and to make sense of it in our own context, just as the NT authors themselves did in the light of Jesus Christ.
    • And when assessing how a NT author utilises an OT text, we will want to be attentive to textual fluidity — to the source of the citation and to its wider context. Asking why and how the OT is being used will be interpretatively fruitful for us as modern readers of both Testaments.



In-Page Footnotes ("Allen (David) - The New Testament’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures")

Footnote 2:
  • This is the write-up as it was when this Abstract was last output, with text as at the timestamp indicated (01/07/2025 11:31:12).
  • Link to Latest Write-Up Note.
Footnote 3:
  • Temporarily – so that you can have a quick look at the booklet to see what it’s on about – I’ve loaded the pdf file here.
  • However, treat this as an advertisement. If you want to read the booklet, please purchase it from Grove Books: David Allen. It is your Christian duty!
  • I intend to remove the link in June 2025.
Footnote 4: Footnote 5: Footnote 6: Footnote 7: Footnote 8: Footnotes 9, 11:
  • Give references in due course.
Footnote 10:
  • To save needless repetition, where my thoughts are likely to be seen as contentious by the likely audience reading this Note – though not, IStM – by the rational general public – I’ve used the abbreviation just used meaning ‘It Seems to Me’.
  • Maybe, in due course, I’ll add justifications for these specific intuitions / prejudices.
Footnote 12: Footnote 13:
  • I no longer capitalise pronouns that refer to the Lord as it seems like a prissy tic, analogous to pious Jews using ‘G*d’ or Moslems saying ‘Peace be Upon Him’ every time the Prophet or some Islamic sage is mentioned. Or referring to ‘Saint Paul’ et al.
  • That said, I still capitalise the Bible and Scripture. Conventional to distinguish the references from other books and writings.
  • I note that capitalising individual letters (at least in Greek) is a Byzantine innovation (Wikipedia: Greek minuscule). Prior thereto manuscripts were either all capitals (Uncials) or all lower-case (minuscules), though I need to check this out. There are no capital letters in Hebrew.
Footnote 14: Footnote 15:
  • One example is Paul’s argument for why women should not teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 3:15). He doesn’t refer to the poor educational exposure of women in his society but refers us back to Adam and Eve with Eve – but not Adam – deceived. Few seem to go along with this.
  • Paul makes a distinction between Abraham’s ‘seed’ and ‘seeds’ in Gal. 3:16 which only makes sense in Greek, not in the Hebrew of Genesis.
Footnote 16:
  • I’m not impressed by 1 Enoch. It may be it picks up some threads in general currency at the time.
  • However, I note here that the general textual fluidity of the OT at the time of the NT should make us wary of pressing arguments based on exact wordings.
Footnote 17: Footnote 18:
  • But see the discussion of Qumran pesher interpretation.
Footnote 19:
  • The omission of ‘the day of vengeance’ is appropriate to the situation, but the inclusion of Is. 58:6 either indicates Luke’s editorial freedom or some textual / lectionary difference.
Footnote 20: Footnote 21:
  • The author suggests that the LXX translators didn’t like the symbolism, but I wasn’t impressed; isn’t God referred to as a Rock in numerous Psalms?
  • The point is, here, that the texts differ between LXX and MT and the NT authors can chose the text form that suits their purposes (subject to their readers knowing the text-form in question, presumably).
Footnote 22:
  • I have some questions about the ready availability of ‘the Scriptures’ to the general interested populace. No-one had a pocket Bible. Even if a synagogue had a complete set, the scrolls would be very voluminous and only the very rich (maybe the Bereans!) would have their own copy. Papyrus scrolls would quickly get tatty if used frequently by lots of individuals.
  • I imagine most peoples’ access to the Scriptures was by hearing them read or discussed.
Footnote 23:
  • The author notes that scribes may have retrofitted the later LXX manuscripts to reflect Hebrews, an assimilatory practice that – I note – led later Jews to rejects the LXX in favour of later translations brought into harmony with the MT.
Footnote 24: Footnote 25: Footnote 26: Footnote 27: Footnote 28:
  • The enemies of Israel in the Biblical texts are identified with ‘the Kittim’, but it is debated – based on the likely dating of the scrolls – whether these are the Romans or the Seleucid Greeks.
  • See Wikipedia: Kittim.
  • Our author doesn’t mention this, focussing on other matters.
Footnote 29: Footnote 30: Footnote 31:
  • It seems most modern Jews perform the rituals in an anti-realist sense for their historical and cultural significance in holding the community together, without caring whether their fellows actually believe any of it all.
Footnote 32:
  • There’s nothing illegitimate about this, I don’t think.
  • Even if this passage is addressed mostly to Gentiles, they have been grafted into the olive tree of Israel.
  • However, it would have been seen as illegitimate by non-believing Jews, so was non-standard interpretation in that sense.
Footnote 33:
  • It’s not clear to me how radical a point Paul is making. He could simply be saying that the wilderness experiences were recorded so that future generations could learn from them.
  • Alternatively, he could be saying that they actually happened so that the Corinthians (and other contemporary and future Christians) could learn from them.
Footnote 34:
  • The idea of the ‘wandering rock’ was mentioned in pseudo-Philo writing around that time, though the ‘rock’ is God rather than Christ.
  • It has been assumed that because there are two incidents of Moses bringing forth water from a rock (Rephidim (Ex. 17:7) and Kadesh (Num. 20:13)) – with both incidents referred to as ‘Meribah’ (strife / contention) – that the rock in each case must have been the same rock following the Israelites around.
  • See Sauter - Water from a Walking Rock - What does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 10:4?.
  • This seems a little fanciful – why didn’t the Israelites at Kadesh ask Moses to strike the rock if they knew its history?
  • However, if this was a recognised expository technique or interpretation, there’s no reason why Paul shouldn’t use it for his purposes.
Footnote 35:
  • R Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989).
  • See also R B Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016).
Footnote 36:
  • Sometimes the original context is not conducive to current understanding.
  • Knowing that ‘decimation’ refers to the loss of one in ten doesn’t – sadly – help us to know what a modern speaker intends – which is often more like nine in ten.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)


© Theo Todman, June 2007 - April 2026. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page