Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual And Theological Exegesis

In this well-written 2003 Aberdeen doctoral thesis, directed by Brian Rosner and Paul Ellingworth sequentially, the author presents, as the subtitle denotes, “an intertextual and theological exegesis” of Romans 9:1–9. Here intertextuality entails the “meaning-effects” of “citation, allusion, and echo” in Paul’s use of Scripture, an approach proposed and championed by Richard Hays. Abasciano focuses upon Rom 9–11 because of its extensive usage of the Old Testament, and he limits his investigation to its first nine verses for the sake of a manageable project. His thesis is that the apostle viewed Scripture as discrete wholes, with each appeal to a particular text entailing its immediate literary context. The assumption is that the scripturally adept readers (or hearers) of a Pauline letter would have recognized not only the source of such an appeal but its textual context as well, thus allowing the whole to inform their understanding of the apostolic point being scored by the specific textual reference. The introduction (the first of the book’s five chapters) is devoted to methodology, definitions, and criteria pertinent to the thesis. Seven criteria are set forth for identifying an appeal to scripture, the two most important of these being designated as volume (the degree of similarity of words, syntax, structure, and common elements between the texts) and thematic coherence (shared subject matter). [Full Review]

This revised version of a dissertation from the University of Aberdeen (2003) offers the most detailed account to date of Paul’s use of Scripture in Rom 9:1–9. The introduction is relatively short (1–26), focusing particularly on the work of Richard Hays and the belief that Romans “is most fruitfully understood when it is read as an intertextual conversation between Paul and the voice of Scripture” (26, quoting Echoes, 35). Abasciano cites Hays’s seven criteria for detecting scriptural echoes (slightly adapted), adding that “volume” (verbal, syntactical, and structural coherence) and “thematic coherence” will “bear the bulk of methodological weight” (24). However, he does not share Hays’s interest in the possibility of a variety of “reading effects” but focuses on what (he thinks) can be demonstrated as Paul’s authorial intention. He assumes that the high level of scriptural argumentation in Romans “leads us to posit scripturally astute readers” (26), dismissing the opposite view (e.g., Stanley) that the likely low levels of literacy among Paul’s readers should affect our reconstructions of Paul. Before embarking on the two main exegetical chapters (9:1–5 and 6–9), there is a short chapter (27–44) on the purpose of Romans and the role of Rom 9–11 in the book. Abasciano allows for multiple purposes within the general aim of wanting the Christians at Rome to be united and supportive of his mission to Spain. [Full Review]