Which Moses - Final Submitted Rev

WHICH MOSES?AN EXPLORATION OF THE FUNCTION OF MOSES INACTS 7 AND 2 CORINTHIANS 3byColin M. ToffelmireSID0812018The Old Testament in the New TestamentPhD 105Dr. Cynthia Long WestfallNovember 3, 2008

1In this paper I will compare and contrast the way that Luke and Paul view Moses,particularly in Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 3. Concentrating on these two passages I willdemonstrate that Luke and Paul appropriate Moses in different ways and for differentrhetorical purposes. Where Luke sees Moses as a great prophetic figure (indeed thepenultimate prophetic figure), Paul sees Moses instead as a mediator or vessel of theglory of God.It is important to justify the use of these passages in particular. Not only do thesepassages seem to be generally representative of the use and function of Moses in theLukan and Pauline literature, they are also both arguably the most extensive and specificinstances of the appropriation of the person of Moses in each author’s body of work.

1

By

1

This is certainly the case in the Pauline literature where the name

Μωϋσς

only appears 10 timesand is generally associated with a direct quotation of the Mosaic Law (note that Quesnel’s count of 9 timesappears to exclude the occurrence in 2 Timothy, Michel Quesnel, “La figure de Moïse en Romains 9-11,”321). Regarding Quesnel’s views on the parallel quotations of Isaiah and Moses in Romans 10:19-21, hispoint in certainly interesting but his conclusion that “[le] personage de Moïse n’endosse alors plus la tenuedu législateur mais plutôt celled du prophète” is overstated considering the limited evidence available,Quesnel, “La figure de Moïse en Romains 9-11,” 324. Apart from our subject passage, there are threeexceptions to these direct references to the Law in Paul’s work. They are found in Romans 5:14, 1Corinthians 10:2, and 2 Timothy 3:8. The passages in Romans and 2 Timothy mention Moses in the firstcase in association with the Law and in the second case in association with the truth, both of which areconsistent with my argument below concerning the way that Paul sees Moses in 2 Cor. 3. The 1Corinthians passage is somewhat more difficult due to the slightly strange phrase:

ες τν Μωϋσνβαπτίσθησαν

(10:2) Though I will not treat this passage extensively in this paper I do think that anargument can be made that here, as in 2 Cor. 3, Moses is not being set in apposition with Jesus but isinstead the bearer of his (that is to say God’s) message. Note that in the imagery Christ is associated withthe rock and not with Moses. Justifying the use of Acts 7 is more difficult. Within the Lukan literature

Μωϋσς

occurs 29 times. Nine of these occurrences fall within Acts 7 and with two exceptions all of therest are explicit or implicit references to the Law of Moses (i.e. the Torah). The two exceptions, Moses’appearance at Jesus’ transfiguration and Jesus’ reference to Moses’ words when challenged about thepractice of levirate marriage, represent an understanding of Moses that is entirely consistent with myargument below concerning Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. The difficulty arises, however, when we considerthe nature and function of Stephen’s speech in Acts. Questions regarding the historicity and genre of Actsin general are beyond the scope of this paper (for helpful discussions of historicity and genre in Acts seeJoel B. Green, “Acts of the Apostles,” 16-18; Martin Dibelius,

The Book of Acts

, 3-86; and LovedayAlexander,

Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context

, 133-163) but it must be noted that regardless of how oneviews Acts with regard to historical accuracy, it seems very likely that either in crafting or in relating thecontent of the speeches in Acts that Luke would have been interested in honoring the spirit of his speaker.Thus even if the content of a speech is entirely fabricated (which seems rather unlikely) it is still difficult todetermine whether the opinions expressed by the speaker are Luke’s, or an approximation of that speaker’s

2examining these two passages carefully I believe that it is possible to gain a clear pictureof the way that both Luke and Paul understand Moses. Having said this I will at all timesattempt to read each of these two particular passages in concert with the greater Lukancorpus

2

and Pauline corpus respectively.

3

Before delving directly into our two passages it is important to explore the waythat Moses appears in other literature of the period. Moses was an undeniably important,and in some cases monolithic, figure in Second Temple Judaism. In some works fromthe period he towers over the rest of humanity, a near divine representative of the God of the universe. In other works he holds the deeply respected though more mundaneposition of a human representative of God and transmitter of the Law.In many of the works found in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works of theSecond Temple Period Moses is a figure of incredible importance and is given greathonor. In 1 Esdras he appears not merely as the transmitter of the Law but as its receiverand interpreter. There Moses is expressly referred to as

το νθρώπου το θεο

andcommandments are found

ν τ Μωυσέως βίβλ το νθρώπου το θεο

(1 Esd. 5:48).“[This] designation carries with it an implied claim to authority as the one to whom Godhas entrusted his law.”

4

Hafemann also argues for that Moses authority is underlinedimplicitly in the

Ascension of Isaiah

3:7-10 where the words of Moses are appealed to as

opinions as crafted and expressed by Luke. Therefore it will be necessary to examine some other Lukanmaterial in concert with Acts 7, though that passage will remain in the foreground.

2

Tempering Luke’s portrayal of Moses in Acts 7 with later material from Acts will be particularlyimportant. See below.

3

It should also be noted that, though a close reading of each passage is necessary in order to gaina clear picture of how the figure of Moses is being appropriated, it is not the purpose of this paper toprovide a complete treatment of either passage. There are significant and important exegetical andtheological questions that surround both Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 3

3

that I will not even attempt to addressor resolve. At all times the principle purpose behind my readings of the text will be to determine theattitude of the text and its author

3

towards Moses and not to elucidate the final meaning of the passageitself.

4

Scott J. Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha : A Survey,” 81.