Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:05:55.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moses' End and the Succession: Deuteronomy 31 and 2 Corinthians 3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

Jane Heath
Jane Heath*
Affiliation:
Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Abbey House, Palace Green, Durham DH1 3RS, UK. email: j.m.f.heath@durham.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay argues that Deut 29–32, especially Deut 31, plays a significant role in 2 Cor 3, especially vv. 7–18: Paul's elusive allegorical narrative draws on Deuteronomic motifs of ‘closure’ (the end of Moses, of the law and of the Israelites); the national observance of reading the law and encountering the Lord face to face; and the succession of Moses by one named Ἰησοῦς in the LXX. This analysis extends scholarly discussion of Paul's use of Deuteronomy and contributes to the wider debate about Paul's use of scripture and his understanding of Jesus' relationship to Moses and the Mosaic covenant.

Keywords

Old Testament in NewJoshuatypology2 CorinthiansDeuteronomy
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 37 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

1 Löhr, H., ‘Steintafeln: Tora-Traditionen in 2Kor 3’, in Der zweite Korintherbrief: Literarische Gestalt – historische Situation – theologische Argumentation. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Dietrich-Alex Koch (ed. Sänger, D.; FRLANT 250; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012) 175–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues persuasively that for Paul the tablets represent the whole Torah, not just the Decalogue.

2 Mitchell, M. M., Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 67–78Google Scholar.

3 Athanasias, Didymus of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria: see Schneider, B., ‘The Meaning of St. Paul's Antithesis “The Letter and the Spirit”’, CBQ 15 (1953) 166–87Google Scholar.

4 Marcion was probably the first to use the terms in this way, but the church adopted them only much later and in an anti-Marcionite sense: Kinzig, W., ‘Καινὴ Διαθήκη: The Title of the New Testament in the Second and Third Centuries’, JTS 45 (1994) 519–44Google Scholar.

5 Lincicum, D., ‘Paul's Engagement with Deuteronomy: Snapshots and Signposts’, CBR 7.1 (2008) 44Google Scholar.

6 Hays, R. B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1989)Google Scholar 123.

7 A few scholars place more weight on other intertexts: Richard, E., ‘Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II Cor., iii,1–iv,6’, RB 88 (1981)Google Scholar; Stockhausen, C. K., Moses' Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor. 3,1–4,6 (AnBib 116; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblica, 1989)Google Scholar; Aernie, J. W., Is Paul Also among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians (LNTS; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2012)Google Scholar.

8 Fishbane, M., Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979) 121–2Google Scholar.

9 Jeremias, J., ‘Μωυσῆς, TDNT 4 (1987) 869Google Scholar; Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel (WUNT 2.4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981) 233–9Google Scholar describes 2 Cor 3.1–4.6 as an ‘antithetical typology between the Sinai theophany and the Damascus Christophany’, with a special focus on the typological relationship between Paul and Moses; Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959) 58–61Google Scholar avoids the term ‘typology’, but like Kim finds a strong comparison between Moses and Paul, not a Moses-Christ typology. Munck understands Paul as ‘the servant of the spiritual principle, and Moses of the literal principle’. Stockhausen, Moses' Veil, 41–2, 150–3 also prefers ‘comparison’, ‘contrast’ and ‘counterpart’ to ‘typology’, but emphasises Moses' relationship to Paul more than to Christ. Watson, F., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2004) 281–313Google Scholar accepts the ‘typology’ between 2 Cor 3 and Exod 34.29–35 (281); he observes the comparison between Paul and Moses but places the emphasis on unveiling Christ: ‘Paul reads scripture in the light of Christ only in order to read Christ in the light of scripture; scriptural interpretation per se is of no interest to him. And yet, in interpreting the Christ event, it is genuinely scriptural interpretation that Paul practises – an interpretation that acknowledges the indirect and sometimes anomalous character of the scriptural testimony, as symbolised by Moses' veil’ (298).

10 Hulmi, S., Paulus und Mose: Argumentation und Polemik in 2 Kor 3 (SFEG 77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) 4Google Scholar.

11 Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief (9th repr. edn; MeyerK 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970 [1924])Google Scholar 112.

12 This corresponds to the second of Dietrich-Alex Koch's seven categories of citation in his Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) 21–4Google Scholar. For critique of his categories, see Stanley, C., Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTS.MS 69; Cambridge University Press, 1992) 35–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 An excellent defence of indeterminate and multilayered approaches to intertextuality is offered by Moss, C. R., ‘Nailing Down and Tying Up: Lessons in Intertextual Impossibility from the Martyrdom of Polycarp’, VC 67 (2013) 117–36Google Scholar.

14 Hays, Echoes, esp. 163–4; Scott, J. M., ‘Paul's Use of Deuteronomistic Tradition’, JBL 112 (1993) 645–65Google Scholar; Watson, Hermeneutics, 415–513; Wagner, J. R., ‘Moses and Isaiah in Concert: Paul's Reading of Isaiah and Deuteronomy in the Letter to the Romans, in ‘As Those Who Are Taught’: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL (ed. McGinnis, C. M. and Tull, P. K.; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2006) 87–103Google Scholar. See also nn. 15–16 below. For the history of research, see Lincicum, ‘Paul's Engagement with Deuteronomy’.

15 Rosner, B. S., ‘Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians’, in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Moyise, S. M. and Maarten, J. J.; London: Continuum, 2007) 118–35Google Scholar, esp. 133. Watson, Hermeneutics, 283–6 draws on Deuteronomy to help unpack what Paul thought was written on Moses' tablets and hence what was contained in the ‘ministry of death’; he does not describe this as an ‘allusion’ to Deuteronomy, though does briefly affirm that ‘the letter kills’ (2 Cor 3.6) ‘reflect(s) not only the Pauline problematising of the Law, but also its scriptural roots in the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy’ (p. 463).

16 Waters, G., The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul (WUNT 2.221; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006)Google Scholar; Lincicum, D., Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy (WUNT 2.284; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010)Google Scholar.

17 Stockhausen, Moses' Veil, 133–50; she argues that John 12.36–9 belongs to the same tradition. See also: Hofius, O., Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr, 1989) 105–6Google Scholar; van Unnik, W. C., ‘“With Unveiled Face”: An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12–18’, NovT 6 (1963) 162–3Google Scholar.

18 For discussion of Paul's Septuagintal Vorlage, see esp. Koch, Schrift, 48–57.

19 Wevers, J. W., ed., Deuteronomium (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum 3.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977)Google Scholar 316. Wevers' edition of Deuteronomy will be cited unless otherwise stated. Textual variants relevant to the argument will be noted.

20 Stockhausen, Moses' Veil, 142–3; Hafemann, S. J., Paul, Moses and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (WUNT 81; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995) 375–7Google Scholar.

21 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., ed., The Book of Isaiah (Hebrew University Bible Project; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981)Google Scholar.

22 Wagner, J. R., Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 344–5Google Scholar. The Greek Isaiah used by Eusebius reads καὶ ἐκράτυνɛ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν [καὶ] τοὺς προφήτας καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὑμῶν τοὺς ὁρῶντας ἐκάλυψɛν (noted by Ziegler in the Göttingen Septuagint 1939, ad loc.).

23 Genette, G., Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1980)Google Scholar 263.

24 Fishbane, Text, xiii–xiv.

25 Genette, Narrative, 23.

26 Young, F., ‘Typology’, in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. Porter, S. E., Joyce, P. and Orton, D. E.; Biblical Interpretation Series 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994)Google Scholar 48.

27 Young, ‘Typology’, 38–9.

28 Koch, Schrift, 51–5.

29 Koch, Schrift, 99–101, 253, 284; Stanley, Language, 71–9.

30 Waters, End, 2 n.7.

31 Here I concur with Wagner's emphasis on memory: Heralds, 21–8. See also Safrai, S., ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (ed. Safrai, S. et al. ; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976) 945–70Google Scholar, esp. 953.

32 Lincicum, Paul, 22–39, esp. 35–7.

33 Olson, D. T., ‘How Does Deuteronomy Do Theology?’, in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (ed. Strawn, B. A. and Bowen, N. R.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003)Google Scholar 210.

34 Lohfink, G., Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (Munich: Kösel, 1971) 61–9Google Scholar; Zwiep, A. W., The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (NovTSup 87; Leiden: Brill 1997) 64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Further discussion in Jacobson, H., A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (2 vols.; AGAJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996)Google Scholar 2.653; K. J. Ruffatto, ‘Visionary Ascents of Moses in Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum: Apocalyptic Motifs and the Growth of Visionary Moses Tradition’ (PhD diss.; Marquette University, 2010), available online at: http://epublications.edu/dissertations_mu/84, accessed 7.6.2013.

36 Sinai: Gig. 54; QE 2.29; Mos. 1.155–8; Nebo: QE 1.86; Virt. 53, 72–9; Mos. 2.288–92. Discussed in Ruffatto, ‘Visionary Ascents’, 56–62. For later Jewish and Samaritan traditions that associate Sinai and Nebo, see Meeks, W. A., The Prophet King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 211–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 244–6.

37 Zwiep, Ascension, 70–1; Millar, D. M., ‘Seeing the Glory, Hearing the Son: The Function of the Wilderness Theophany Narratives in Luke 9:28–36’, CBQ 72 (2010) 498–517Google Scholar.

38 (Gen 15.18); discussed in Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, 2.658.

39 See further Feldman, L. H., ‘Philo's Interpretation of Joshua’, JSP 12 (2001) 165–78Google Scholar.

40 Tromp, J., The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 85–122Google Scholar.

41 Lierman, J., The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 162–6Google Scholar.

42 Hays, Echoes, 87–104; Wright, N. T., ‘Romans and the Theology of Paul’, in Pauline Theology, vol. 3: Romans (ed. Hay, D. M. and Johnson, E. E.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 30–67Google Scholar; F. Thielman, ‘Story of Israel and the Theology of Romans 5–8’, in Pauline Theology, 3.169–95; Keesmat, S. C., Paul and his Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition (JSNTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999)Google Scholar; Wilson, T. A., ‘Wilderness Apostasy and Paul's Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians’, NTS 50 (2004) 550–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Lietzmann, H., An die Römer (HNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933)Google Scholar 72; Nygren, A., Commentary on Romans (London: SCM, 1952)Google Scholar 272; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Black, 1962)Google Scholar 136; Moo, D., The Epistle to the Romans (Grant Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans: 1996) 413–14Google Scholar; Lohse, E., Der Brief an die Römer (KEK 415; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 207.

44 Augustine, Propos. 36, cited in Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer (EKK vi/2; Zürich: Benziger, 1980)Google Scholar 66 n. 256; Leenhardt, F. J., The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary (London: Lutterworth, 1961)Google Scholar 178.

45 Earnshaw, J. D., ‘Reconsidering Paul's Marriage Analogy in Romans 7.1–4’, NTS 40 (1994) 68–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Nygren, Romans, 273; Wilckens, Römer, 66.

47 He uses each of these contrasts separately on other occasions: παλαιότης/καινότης: Rom 6.4, 6; 2 Cor 3.6, 14; Eph 4.22–4; Col 3:9; and γράμμα/πνɛῦμα: Rom 2.29; 2 Cor 3.6. See Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegestical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998)Google Scholar 339. Thrall, M., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994)Google Scholar 249 argues that ‘Paul must have instructed his Corinthian converts in the line of thinking about the Mosaic religious system which he sets out in Romans’.

48 Watson, Hermeneutics, 286–91. Watson's exclusive emphasis on the Calf episode is, I suggest, tied to the fact that he is principally considering the ‘ministry of death’ (v. 7), which does have its home at Sinai in the imagery/allusion. My interest, however, is in what happens after that, especially the ‘end of that which was fading away’ (v. 13), and beyond. Paul's ‘ending’ language shifts its focus from the idolatry that starts at Sinai and continues in the form of Israelite hard-heartedness. The latter continues up to and beyond Moses' death, but inasmuch as it is the veil on his very face that hides the ‘end of that which is fading away’, the accumulation of ‘ending’ language comes to find its focus personally in him.

49 Theobald, M., Die überströmende Gnade: Studien zu einem paulinischen Motivfeld (FB 22; Würzburg: Echter, 1982)Google Scholar 184 n. 79.

50 On καταργέω, see esp. Hafeman, History, 301–9. On τέλος, see e.g. Collange, J. F., Enigmes de la deuxième épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude exégétique de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 (SNTSMS 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 97–8Google Scholar; Hays, Echoes, 136–9; Hofius, Paulusstudien, 102; Thrall, Second Epistle, 256–8.

51 Wevers, Deuteronomium, ad locc. notes grammatical variants but the vocabulary for ending stands in all extant manuscripts.

52 Some manuscripts read καινος: A M 707txt 57 75 30’-343’.

53 Olson, ‘How Does Deuteronomy’, 210.

54 Watson, Hermeneutics, 454–5 similarly emphasises the significance in general for Paul of Deuteronomy's twofold ending for the Torah, but underscores the sufficiency of divine initiative for salvation by contrast with the requirements of the Mosaic covenant (cf. pp. 464–5). The present passage in 2 Corinthians, however, does not draw this clear distinction between the demands upon divine and human initiatives under the two covenants, or the twofold telos open to the gazing worshippers.

55 Cohen, S. J. D., ‘The Temple and the Synagogue’, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3. The Early Roman Period (ed. Horbury, W., Davies, W. D. and Sturdy, J.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 304–6Google Scholar; Horbury, W., Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998)Google Scholar 230 with n. 15; Lincicum, Paul, 31–3.

56 Schiffman, L. H., ‘The Early History of Public Reading of the Torah’, in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (ed. Fine, S.; New York: Routledge, 1999)Google Scholar 38. On the national setting: Deut 31.10–11, see Ulfgard, H., The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles (BGBE 34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998)Google Scholar 94; Schiffman, ‘Early History’, 38.

57 Ulfgard, Sukkot, 94, 108–12.

58 Most commentators understand ἡμɛῖς δὲ πάντɛς in 2 Cor 3.18 as a reference to all Christians: e.g. Collange, Enigmes, 115; Harris, M. J., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grant Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005)Google Scholar 313; Schwindt, R., Gesichte der Herrlichkeit: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zur paulinischen und johanneischen Christologie (Freiburg/New York: Herder, 2007) 223–4Google Scholar; a minority think that it refers to the apostles only: Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (trans. and ed. Dickson, W. P. and Stewart, W.; 2 vols.; CECNT 2; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1879)Google Scholar 2.217; Hughes, P. E., Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NLCNT; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1962)Google Scholar 117.

59 Olson, ‘How Does Deuteronomy’, 211 emphasises the surprise of this ‘full-fledged theophany’ alongside the ‘verbal, aural, and distant God’.

60 Anderson, G. A., ‘Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture’, in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004 (ed. Clements, R. and Schwartz, D. R.; STDJ; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 161–94Google Scholar.

61 2 Cor 3.16 // Exod 34.34. Exodus' narrative of how Moses was hidden in a cleft to behold God's hind-parts resists the idea that Moses ever saw God face to face (Exod 33), but this is in tension with (and perhaps originally intended to correct) the impression left by the narrative about his entry into the Tent of Meeting or his glorious face after speaking with God on Sinai.

62 In some early Christian thought, Christ was the face or presence of God who was hidden by the veil to the Holy of Holies (Clem. Strom. 5.6.34, cf. Paed. 3.2.4.1–5.2).

63 Exegetes give diverse interpretations: Hays, Echoes, 149–53 thinks of hermeneutical freedom in interpreting scripture; Thrall, Second Epistle, 275–6 suggests it is a positive status, as depicted in Gal 4 and Rom 8, and that the latter passage may have been known to the Corinthians, for whom ‘freedom’ was in any case an appealing concept; Lietzmann, H. D., An Die Korinther i–ii (ed. Kümmel, W. G.; 5th edn; HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1969)Google Scholar 113 compares different kinds of Pauline freedom in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians. My own reading is closer to Harris, Second Epistle, 312–13, who emphasises that it is unqualified and therefore includes all freedom implied in the literary context.

64 See above, 3.4.

65 Jude 5 (?); Barn 6.8–19; Tert. Adv. Iud. 9.21–2; these and other texts are discussed in Ounsworth, R., Joshua Typology in the New Testament (WUNT 2.328; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 10–18Google Scholar. See also Clem. Al. Paed. i.vii.60.3; Tert. Mon. 6.39–44. Luke attributes to Jesus another Hebrew forebear named Ἰησοῦς (Luke 3.29), a reading that some may have been uncomfortable with, as Alexandrinus reads Ἰωση instead. See discussion in Greenspoon, L., ‘Translating Jesus and the Jews: Can we Eradicate the Anti-Semistism without Also Erasing the Semitism?’, in Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship (ed. Chilton, B., Le Donne, A. and Neusner, J.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2012) 13–14Google Scholar.

66 In 2 Cor 3.16–18, Paul writes of ‘the Lord’. However, he emphasises the name Ἰησοῦς in 2 Cor 4.10–11 and probably also in vv. 5–6; in these verses he five times uses Ἰησοῦς on its own, a usage which is generally rare in his letters.

67 Recently investigated in Ounsworth, Joshua Typology, by which my exegesis of Hebrews here is chiefly informed.

68 For this distinction, see further Ounsworth, Joshua Typology, 4–8, 19, 32–40.

69 Cf. the recent plea in this journal for greater tolerance of ambiguity at the lexical level of exegesis: Downing, F. G., ‘Ambiguity, Ancient Semantics, and Faith’, NTS 56 (2010) 139–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 I am carefully avoiding suggesting a diachronic division in Paul's mind between the sacred ‘past’ and the Corinthian ‘present’: cf. Young, ‘Typology’, 44–5, 47–8.