Evoking Scripture (by Steve Moyise): A Book Review

Last updated on: July 2, 2008 at 2:38 pm by Nijay Gupta

Evoking Scripture (by Steve Moyise): A Book Review 2008-07-02T14:38:24-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One of my top interests in New Testament research is how the New Testament relates to the Old Testament. In this area of scholarship, one tends to think of scholars such as Richard Hays, Greg Beale, A.T. Hanson, Richard Longenecker, Scott Hafemann, James Dunn, and C.H. Dodd. Well, one who should be more recognized as a leading expert in this area is British scholar Steve Moyise, Professor of NT at University of Chichester, UK.

Not only is he the editor of the T & T Clark series on the Old in the New which includes Psalms in the NT , Isaiah in the NT, and Deuteronomy in the NT, he also wrote an introductory book on the subject for T & T Clark. Moreover, he is the organizer and chair of the Annual Seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament that normally meets in Wales every year. I have met and chatted with him on a few occasions and he has offered some feedback on my research, so I am happy to offer a review of his new book: Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New.

This is not an introductory book, which is what I imagined it to be when I read the title. It is more of a reflection on how various expert scholars approach the topic from a methodological and theological point of view. In fact, students who have read little on the subject of biblical intertextuality will not glean much from the dense discussion that Moyise engages is. Rather, Moyise takes a step back from the diligent work of NT scholars in this area and he does a state-of-the-discipline kind of discussion. The book, I think, has a bit of a critical and cold tone, but Moyise only takes this approach as one who has devoted his career to this subject and wants to be fair and circumspect in his approach out of respect.

The format of the book is a bit unique: it is composed of 8 case studies of particular NT texts (from Gospels, Paul, 1 Peter, and Revelation) to inspect closely how and why interpreters make the decisions they do about the intertextual issues. What we get from Moyise overall is a kind of discussion that goes like this.

Hays says about this passage: blah, blah, blah. There, see how it all works.

Watson says: blah, blah, blah. There, see, this makes better sense.

C. Stanley: No, no, no. That’s nonesense. It can be explained in terms of this…

Moyise, after much patience and critical listening leans forward and says: Fellas….not so fast….is it really that simple? Let’s see if your theory really works out all the problems…[After some experiments and tinkering…]. No, see there’s much yet unaccounted for. Its much too complex. Besides, if the three of you geniuses disagree, how could it possibly be that simple to interpret Paul???

Case after case, Moyise uses different texts and brings forward different scholars to make a similar point about presuppositions, method, focus, orientation, selective emphases, neglect of complexities. In one sense, this is a very sobering book.

Time only permits me to point out, generally, some of Moyise’s concerns with scholarly discussions of NT use of OT texts.

1. Nature of Evocations: Since Richard Hays’ work on intertextuality and metalepsis, scholars have been keen on seeing how a quote from one verse in, let’s say, Isaiah, is meant to evoke the whole chapter from Isaiah, or a major section not explicitly stated in the citation. Moyise finds this to be Ok in general, but what happens when the NT text (such as Paul in Rom. 2.24) seems to be quoting Isa. 52.5 without any real close association with the context and meaning of Isaiah 52 in general. It would seem that the original context of Isaiah 52 is one of reassurance to an exiled Israel, while Paul’s use is one of judgment. Does metalepsis work here…?

2. Attitude towards OT text: Most conservative scholars presume that, if God is the figure behind the whole Bible, the NT author would not completely overturn an OT text, right? But Moyise points to instances in Mark and Revelation where the authors seem to evoke a scriptural text only to undermine it.

3. Evocation and Orientation: Beale begins and focuses his attention on the author and what he intended in the scriptural citation. Someone like C. Stanley finds that to be misleading because maximalists, like Beale and Hays, don’t seem to take into account the ability the receipts would have had to understand the wider background of the original OT text. Moyise on this issue is critical of the author-only approach and endorses a more nuanced method that is both interested in the author and the reader.

4. Purpose of evocation: Does someone like Paul first believe something based on the Gospel or special revelation and then look for scriptural proof to strengthen his arguments (which seems to be the more traditional view)? Or, did he first discover some things based on key Scriptural texts and develop his theology from that (which leans more towards Watson’s Hermeneutic of Faith)? Moyise explores this further, making positive comments about Watson’s work. Again, the issue is shown to be complex.

5. Adaptation in Evocation: How much freedom did the author of NT text have to alter the script and meaning of the evoked OT text? This is perhaps the most significance question from a theological standpoint. This has some bearing on the art of interpretation in general as the question arises, a very postmodern one, can a text have an endless number of meanings? This certainly overlaps with the matter of whether authorial intent is a primary concern. Moyise, as noted above, is not nearly as focused on authorial intent as others. So, he seems to be confortable with more freedom for NT authorial adaptation.

Thoughts: Moyise’s analyses are always careful and never hasty. He writes as if providing color commentary on an conversation that is taking place among a group of scholars. He is not trying to peddle his own perspective, but is reflecting on method and approaches as one who is not afraid to dive in to the messiness of interpretation.

Only a couple of things could have been improved, in my humble opinion. First, even though this is a very detailed dense text, the publisher (or author) chose to transliterate Greek words, which I found to be odd. The kind of person who is going to read this book will almost certainly also know Greek. Or, the other way around, if you don’t know Greek, don’t bother reading the book! Pick up Moyise’s introductory text!

The other thing is that the introduction is extremely brief (less than 5 pages) and I felt like this could have been a good opportunity for Moyise to do give a bit more of how this discipline has gotten to where it is. Just when the intro gets going…it over. The conclusion, though, is excellent. And, the end bibliography is a great resource for students and scholars like.

Final thoughts: This is a must-read for those studying the use of the OT in the NT. Any new dissertation on the subject will have to interact with Moyise, though he is not specifically wishing to offer his own special solution. I see his comments more like that of a consultant who wishes to improve, not replace. One of the more stimulating contributions that Moyise makes, I think, pertains to how intertextuality works. In Moyise’s view, a text that evokes another one is volatile and unstable. It is at the same time attractive (in the sense that it is a puzzle, like a metaphor) and incomplete (in terms of leaving the reader to connect the texts).

Since the [NT author] has not made it clear how he wants a particular allusion to be taken, the reader must ‘activate’ the allusion by finding a connection that is helpful, satisfying or stimulating…Allusions are by definition elusive. Essential informaton has been withheld, allowing the reader/hearer space to ‘activate’ the allusion. In that sense, it is closer to poetry than prose, operating more at the emotional rather than cognitive level (which is not to deny some cognitive content.

This is a very welcome contribution to the field and we expect more from Moyise. The fact that Richard Hays and Christopher Stanley endorse the book is a testament to Moyise’s balanced treatment of the subject.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 30, 2008

Paul's Conversion/Call, a Session of the British New Testament Conference

Next Post

July 3, 2008 Is Jimmy Dunn an 'evangelical'??

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz