NT use of the OT

[mattrose]

I have long been fascinated by the way the NT authors used the OT text (often times, in very surprising ways... ways in which modern people think are often not appropriate). In fact, for the last couple of years I've been hoping to find a book which attempts to deal with all the references of the OT in the NT text. I have finally found this book and thought some of you might be interested.

It is titled "Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament" and is edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. It is about 1,200 pages in length and so far I have found it quite useful as a resource (I've read good portions of Matthew and 1 Corinthians, the 2 books I'm currently teaching through).

http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-New-Te ... 775&sr=8-1

[blackheart]

I purchased the same and have found it to be immensely "fantabulous" Often side notes within the text rivet me with the unstated implications.

[Paidion]

Matt, do the authors mention at all the fact that NT quotes of the OT are taken from the Septuagint, or the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated, and NOT the Masoretic text?

Example:

Paul’s quote in Rom 14:11 of a clause from Isaiah 45:23

... ὁτι ἐμοι καυψει παν γονυ και πασα γλωσσα ἐξομολογησεται τῳ θεῳ

...that to me shall bow every knee and every tongue shall assent to God.

Septuagint translation of the clause from Isaiah 45:23

...ὁτι ἐμοι καυψει παν γονυ και ἐξομολογησεται πασα γλωσσα τῳ θεῳ

...that to me shall bow every knee and shall assent every tongue to God.


Even the Septuagint changed a bit because of copying. But notice that the only difference between Paul's quote and the modern Septuagint is the interchange of "πασα γλωσσα" and
"ἐξομολογησεται".

A translation of the Masoretic Text:

... That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath. NKJV

This is not the same. Taking an oath seems a quite different activity from assenting to (or agreeing with) God.

[mattrose]

One of the things the book does for each direct quotation is analyze which OT version is being utilized by the NT author. Indeed, they usually used the Septuagint. But in any case, that issue is addressed for every direct quotation via a (usually brief) paragraph.

[mattrose]

Paidion... I wanted to quote from the book what it says about the verse you mentioned (just so you can see clearly the sort of information the book provides). On the issue of Paul's source, one paragraph states...

"Paul's citation corresponds verbatim to that of the LXX, aside from the transposition of the verb in the 2nd clause after the subject (pasa glossa), so that it appears just prior to its object (exomologesetai to theo). Both Paul and the LXX disrupt the Hebrew parallelismus membrorum slightly in the 2nd clause by (1) adding the coordinating conjuction kai (and); (2) supplying the object of the verb, which is left unexpressed in Hebrew b/c it appears at the outset of the first clause. Paul's transposition of the subject and verb bring him further out of line with the Hebrew word order. The Hebrew text also contains a parallelism that disappears in the LXX and with Paul: just as the Lord has sworn (nisba ti) by himself, every tongue will swear (tissaba) to him. Usually to swear to someone is to make a promise. Here, however, there is a dramatic reversal: the Lord is the one who has promised. Every knee and tongue responds by acknowledging that righteousness and strength are found in Yahweh alone. The Septuagint rendering, which Paul takes up, stands quite close to the sense of the Hebrew text."

[darinhouston]

Paidion... I wanted to quote from the book what it says about the verse you mentioned (just so you can see clearly the sort of information the book provides). On the issue of Paul's source, one paragraph states...

"Paul's citation corresponds verbatim to that of the LXX, aside from the transposition of the verb in the 2nd clause after the subject (pasa glossa), so that it appears just prior to its object (exomologesetai to theo). Both Paul and the LXX disrupt the Hebrew parallelismus membrorum slightly in the 2nd clause by (1) adding the coordinating conjuction kai (and); (2) supplying the object of the verb, which is left unexpressed in Hebrew b/c it appears at the outset of the first clause. Paul's transposition of the subject and verb bring him further out of line with the Hebrew word order. The Hebrew text also contains a parallelism that disappears in the LXX and with Paul: just as the Lord has sworn (nisba ti) by himself, every tongue will swear (tissaba) to him. Usually to swear to someone is to make a promise. Here, however, there is a dramatic reversal: the Lord is the one who has promised. Every knee and tongue responds by acknowledging that righteousness and strength are found in Yahweh alone. The Septuagint rendering, which Paul takes up, stands quite close to the sense of the Hebrew text."

Looks like something Paidion would really enjoy.

[Paidion]

Thanks for the quote, Matt. It seems that the book offers a thorough treatment of its subject matter.

[RickC]

Greetings!

I've had this book on my 'wish list' for over a year.
(And think we've had a thread about it on one of Steve's forums, new or old).

Here's a good review/introduction: Book Alert!

I had problems with D.A. Carson's mp3s 'skipping' (on the topic at hand).
I'll try loading them again since I have a new computer since last listen.
Tom Schreiner's audio came through okay.

I read a significant part of the commentary on Matthew One (by Craig Blomberg, I think @ amazon).
It was very good, though it didn't cover (or touch upon) certain technical areas I've studied (re: virgin conception).

Take care!

[RickC]

Matt, (Hello, if you're still around)!

You and I are, to a large degree, "N.T. Wright guys," if you see what I'm sayin....

That D.A. Carson (and probably G.K. Beale) oppose NTW's own version of NPP (New Perspecitive on Paul) goes without saying. I know Carson does, strongly. The contributors to 'NT Use of OT' seem to be mostly Reformed (I'm not familiar with most of them).

Mark Seifrid, who does Romans, appears to be one of them (I don't know his work).
I found a blog article: Mark Seifrid on N.T. Wright's "Moral Idealism" which makes me wonder if the book gives more than Non-NPP views of Romans (as well as in the rest of the book). A 'Steve Gregg coverage' of all views out there then 'his' would be cool. However, I wouldn't want to buy a book that's essentially (just more) Reformed theology, if that makes sense?

When you find time, could you comment on if there's a Reformed bias in the book? Not just on Romans (& NPP), but overall. It's not that I can't 'sift thru' material and 'weed things out'. I'd like to have a general idea about how much of that I may have to do - before I invest the money!

Sidebar on G.K. Beale
I posted mp3 links to a very excellent lecture series he did on Revelation on this, or the old, forum.
Beale's Reformed. In those particular lectures, there wasn't a Reformed bias, in that there wasn't anything controversial in what he talked about: Just great 'NT use of the OT' for the book of Revelation! (Entirely Awesome, in fact)!!!!

But when it comes to Romans (and probably Galatians by extension); I just need more information before I'll spend the money for this book. I'd have gotten it sooner but have had reservations about a possible 'over the top' Reformed bias.

Thanks, Matt!

[mattrose]

Hey man

It'd prolly be too early for me to comment on any reformed bias in the book. That is to say, I haven't noticed such a thing, but I am only reading it ALONG WITH my current series.' Thus, I have read 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, along with Matthew (up to chapter 8) and 1 Corinthians (up to chapter 7). Carson wrote 1-3 John, but these 3 letters are noteworthy for their LACK of references to the OT. The entire commentary is, thus, only like 4 pages. The Matthew section is authored by Craig Blomberg (who in my opinion is very even handed). I haven't noticed any bias there (i'm not really aware of Blomberg's position on reformed theology). 1 Corinthians is authored by Roy E. Ciampa & Brian S. Rosner. I can't say I've noticed a bias here either. But, to be honest, I haven't been reading the book with reformed theology in mind.

In other words, I don't have much info for you!