The Divine Builder in Psalm 68

Jewish and Pauline Tradition

Todd A. Scacewater

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780567694256
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

The problem of Psalm 68: 19 (Masoretic Text) in Ephesians 4: 8 has a rich history of interpretation; particular focus has been placed on Jewish and Pauline interpretations of the psalm, and the Jewish exegetical tradition that reads Moses as the one who ascends Mount Sinai to receive and give the law. Todd Scacewater suggests a second tradition, henceforth unnoticed, that interprets Psalm 68 eschatologically. While both traditions are significant, Scacewater maintains that the eschatological tradition provides a better matrix through which to understand Paul's use of the psalm. Scacewater argues that another key for understanding Pauline use of the psalm is the divine builder topos, which is pervasive in the ancient Near East, utilized in Psalm 68, and evident in Paul's understanding of the psalm as he applies it to Christ, the eschatological divine builder. Discussing the context of Ephesians, the building of the Temple and the trope of the divine builder, and Psalm 68's position in early/late Judaism and Ephesians, Scacewater contributes to a new methodology for studying how the New Testament authors interpreted and appropriated Hebrew Scriptures.

1

Ephesians 4:8 in Context

In order to understand how an author is using a text, one must first understand the context in which that use occurs. The immediate context of the citation of Ps 68:19 in Eph 4:8 is the wider section 4:1–16. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze Eph 4:1–16 as a discourse unit and to discern the function of v. 8 in that context. Subsequently, I will make two arguments regarding the author’s representation of the “gifts” that are given by Christ and the purpose for which they are given. These two arguments are integral for my understanding of how the author is using the psalm. Finally, I will add some corroborative evidence for these arguments by surveying similar ideas throughout Ephesians and Colossians. However, before this analysis, I must discuss some introductory matters relating to Ephesians. Authorship matters because the various NT authors have tendencies in the way that they use the OT and vary in the degree to which and the manner in which they are influenced by early Jewish traditions. The destination of Ephesians matters because the social milieu of the audience is an important component of investigating what the author would have meant in any specific utterance. For this study, the destination plays a large factor in interpreting Eph 4:9–10 and in the rhetorical effect of the author’s use of Ps 68. And so we begin with a discussion of the authorship of Ephesians, followed by its destination, and finally on to the proper subject of this chapter, an analysis of Eph 4:1–16.

Authorship of Ephesians

Christians unanimously believed Paul wrote Ephesians until the modern period.¹ E. Evanson first objected to Pauline authorship in 1792 because the author of Ephesians did not know his readers (Eph 1:15–16; 3:2), while Paul knew the Ephesians well (Acts 19:1–21; 20:17–38).² In 1824, L. Usteri objected due to Ephesians’ similarity to Colossians.³ W. M. L. De Wette followed suit in 1847, employing Evanson’s and Usteri’s arguments and adding arguments from style.⁴ Since these initial challenges, scholars have been divided. H. Hoehner surveyed scholars who have accepted, rejected, or have been uncertain of Pauline authorship from 1519 to 2001.⁵ In only five decades since 1851 have the majority of scholars surveyed by Hoehner denied Pauline authorship. The main arguments of this study do not hinge on Pauline authorship, although some of the more subsidiary arguments and the proposed rhetorical effects of Eph 4:8–10 on the audience are more plausible if Paul did author Ephesians. A survey of the evidence for authorship is therefore not irrelevant. Since Pauline authorship fits into the wider discussion about pseudepigraphy in the ancient world, and since some argue that the authorship issue is irrelevant because pseudepigraphy was an ethically acceptable practice in the early church, it is also worthwhile to briefly survey the discussions about pseudepigraphy first.

Pseudepigraphy in the Ancient World

Pseudepigraphy was a common Jewish practice that continued in the Christian tradition.⁶ The three major questions are whether pseudepigraphy was a standard and accepted literary practice, whether pseudepigraphers intended to deceive their readers, and what the early church’s attitude was toward pseudepigraphs. These questions are tied up with the likelihood that Ephesians could be pseudepigraphal and the implications of viewing it as such.

Scholars now commonly claim that some or all pseudepigraphers did not intend to deceive their readers and that there are no ethical dilemmas with the practice.⁷ But these claims are substantiated by little evidence. The OT is no source for accepted pseudepigraphy because there are no authorial claims in the OT.⁸ In Jewish pseudepigrapha, writers attempted to legitimate their authorial claims to bolster their authority, which suggests that known pseudepigrapha were not accepted as authoritative, inspired, or “canonical.”⁹ Concern for genuine authorship is explicit later in Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.37–42) and the Talmud (b. Bat. 14b–15a). Pseudepigraphy was similarly condemned in the Greco-Roman world.¹⁰ Some believe Porphyry and Iamblichus provide definitive evidence that it was acceptable for Pythagoras’s disciples to publish in his name. But Porphyry distinguished between Pythagoras’s genuine writings, those of his school, and pseudepigraphal works by “shameful people,” while Iamblichus referred to students’ compilations of Pythagoras’s lecture notes.¹¹ Thus, in the ancient world, pseudepigraphy was common but was disparaged by those who did not practice it.¹²

There is also no evidence of which I am aware that pseudepigraphal epistles were morally acceptable. Greco-Roman pseudepigraphers never took pains to make their epistles appear authentic.¹³ But the disputed Pauline letters in many places claim to be written by Paul, sometimes even warning against pseudepigraphers.¹⁴ These passages are either blatant attempts at ancient identity theft or they are penned by Paul himself.

The early church shared the same negative attitude toward pseudepigraphy.¹⁵ Pseudepigraphal epistles were not acceptable and were rejected outright by the church if known to be forged. If Ephesians is pseudepigraphal, it is deceptive in its many authorial claims and its personal and historical details, and the early church would have rejected it had they discovered that it was pseudepigraphal. Even so, many scholars still find linguistic, theological, and historical evidence to claim that Ephesians could not have been authored by Paul.

Objections to Paul’s Authorship of Ephesians

Four arguments are generally adduced to argue against Paul’s authorship of Ephesians. First, many claim that Ephesians has a significant amount of unique vocabulary—some of which occurs more frequently in post-apostolic literature than in the NT—and that its style is overly pleonastic.¹⁶ But these objections are all reasonably countered. Much of the vocabulary is not as odd as is claimed and the relative proportion of hapax legomena is lower than in some of the undisputed epistles.¹⁷ It is not rare for Paul’s language to influence the Fathers.¹⁸ Finally, Paul uses a pleonastic style many times elsewhere.¹⁹ It should also be noted that many arguments ignore the role of amanuenses, coauthors, and preformed traditions,²⁰ and that advances in stylometrics and register demonstrate problems with arguments from language and style.²¹

Second, many claim that the theology expressed in Ephesians differs from the undisputed Paulines or, more strongly, “makes the Pauline composition of the Epistle completely impossible.”²² Examples include revealed mysteries, ascension mysticism, religious cosmology, the nature of the law, the supposed lack of the cross and Christ’s death, Christ’s cosmic lordship, realized eschatology, and the status of Israel.²³ Some of these examples rest on debatable exegetical positions of various passages, while others assume hypothetical religio-historical backgrounds. A few themes could represent developments in Paul’s thought.²⁴ Themes such as realized eschatology and Christ’s cosmic lordship are carried over from Colossians. The value of theological themes for discussing Pauline authorship is limited since each theme is developed via debatable exegesis.

Third, parts of Ephesians may suggest that it was written from a time later than Paul’s ministry. Ephesians 3:4–8 could reveal a pseudepigrapher feigning authority (3:5).²⁵ But it is reasonable to see Paul’s self-presentation in Ephesians as coherent with his self-presentation in the undisputed Paulines.²⁶ Ephesians 4:7–16 could suggest a post-Pauline period when a multiplicity of teachings had developed.²⁷ But the exhortation to unity alludes back to the “one new man” of 2:13–18, not to contemporary heresies.²⁸ The ecclesiastical structure of the church in Ephesians does not necessitate a late date, since Paul mentions ecclesiastical leaders in his accepted letters (Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Cor 12:28; Phlm 2).²⁹ Nor must Eph 2:11–22 suggest a unified, second-century Catholic church, since 2:11–22 is more theological (or ideal) than historical. In sum, nothing in Ephesians must have been written in a post-Pauline era.

Fourth, Ephesians’ relationship with the Pastorals and Colossians creates questions. P. Pokorný believes the portrayal of the church in Ephesians and the Pastorals is late, but he also stresses the different eschatologies, which makes a conflicted argument that the epistles are too similar and too different.³⁰ Ephesians’ similarity to Colossians for many suggests a “changed perspective” in Ephesians, which “requires for its explanation a lapse of time.”³¹ But the literary similarities between Ephesians and Colossians are too overblown.³² And if a pseudepigrapher were copying historical details from Colossians, why was Timothy not included as a coauthor, and why are all the names in Col 4 except Tychicus omitted? “No theory of imitation offers a suitable explanation of this inconcinnity.”³³ Even the notion of Colossians’s priority has been challenged in recent years by A. van Roon and E. Best, so that one cannot even be certain that Colossians could have been the Vorlage of Ephesians.³⁴

Summary on Authorshi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Tables
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Ephesians 4:8 in Context
• 2 Gifts for Building the Temple in Psalm 68:19
• 3 The Divine Builder Literary Topos
• 4 Old Testament Scripture in Psalm 68
• 5 Psalm 68 in Early and Late Judaism
• 6 Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8–10
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Scripture Index
• Subject Index
• Copyright Page