RIGHTEOUS Lor? THE GAstasstezs.rein ¢9 Loris 2 PEvP 29-8 AS 4 CASEOF INKEI-BIALICAL AT urs 210 EEI1a"P IE FACULTY OF Goapon Costs 1 TrrgLOgieA, SEMDIARY SOUTH TTAMILTOS, MA IN PARTIAL PULFIEL MR OF REQUIRE MER ISR 11H, Disk # MASTER OF ALIS IN Nis TSTAMENT Br AARON DEBE Juve 29,2017 Table of Contents (Chapter 1: Method end Appuoaci.« 1 La The Xeee Jo This Samy 1 12 Approach and Ontlne of This Seady 2 1.3 Defining Terms for Scriptural Recse 4 1 Leet: fpieg and Assessing Kvidenve for Sexiputtal Rese 7 1.5 Eetblisheng te Diee:on of Dependence ra 1.6 Ausipical Nasvaties f 17 Characterbation f EX Conclusion Y (Chapeer 2: The Characterization of Lot in 2 Pevet 237-8 and Genesis 19. ol) 2a Exegesis of Veter 27-8 19 2a he Chavaster-radian of Lovin 2 Pecur iy 8: Sunvey ad Evaluation af Recent scholacshis 8 2.22 Hvahetioa 8 2,3 The Chanactediarion of Lor m Gencwie 1g: A Survey aml Evaluation of Revent Scholarship as 2.3.1 Lat an an Unrigheens a 29 2.13 Beahtion 3 2.2.2 Lovasa Complex, Movally Ambiguoos Man a4 2.5.21 lvaluation ve 35 2.3.3 The Nate ofthe Sodouites’ Request and Sint. 36 2.3.41 Bealuaton 38 2.3.4 The Narare of Lats Ofer of fis Daughters a2 2 Evasion 4a Comehnsivn nse 44 Chapter a The Rightexnsaess of La 4a 3.1 Ihe Hood and Sodum Stories ay Analogical Narrstves 48 3.2 The Funetions of Shared Language in che Klood and Sodom Stories 1 Pe Functions of Weak Corenpondents 2 tare Pets had % soticdlie aunt igrenmnsnen de rasta ait i "Koo and in Vophern Wolfman Tee ™ Choe eng eo ncn rs ty 3 ve ® Ghapeer 1 Merit anp ApeROACE 3a Ti. Ns Fou Tas Siupy Any serious reader a the Christian scriptures las prolly wondered upon oecasion ot just why a biblical author says dhs or that in a particular eontest, bul hows i is ‘hata biblical suchor ean anake a puniculsr chim on any grounals at afl, regardless of che context, One such cause fo: wonder wopld scum to voeur in 2 Pet 2:7-8, where, in the span of to vases, che author calls Tot “sightoous tbr times, going so fx as to claim that Loc was “distressed” and “tooncot| ed because ol the wicked eed he witnessed (presumably in Socom}, Ye ia fight of what ome might call ‘seraightiorward! reading of Tat’s aeons in Genesis, sueh @ positive chavactericativn of Lot is rather pemplexing, At the wery least Tov is uertainly never ealled “rightevus” in Genesis, Ax one scalar purs il "Peter's aygrandiziny uf Lot dies preseul a ‘hermeneutical prablems, i Usat aany of Low’s actions in the Genesis narrauive can be called ino question. (On shat basis did Petes attibure “tightevusness” 10 Lot, bee? fa ckarneterizing Lotay a righteous wan, did Peter draw or appropriate, ox adapt a specitic source no ‘Or is Peter's characterization of Lot somehow warranted on Tonget extan ters 12 Cre wv “rigkecousness” and its commas are usein an Ue ep il rote salt "Tamess aeanese nod, gen, praca seme aver ans sa snes Mlle 1968, 268, author’ naplasig of Cee 188%, 216: Green 2088 29 Reese 2005, 19 # Eg Jose, aie. 15, wherin Joesshis recowuts tic wiolene History herwsen irl he Anata king, Nah Beove tLe uiscweny of 4088", we ane espe of suc exegetical prounds? A survey uf propened selutions to bese questions reveals chat sufficieat atention has no been piven tos hoss Une characterization of Lov as a righteous man may have boon affeuted ya comparison with Neal (Ger 6 91+ 3 comparison warranted by the analogical nature of the flood and Sevan strfes aud the grouping together of tie two men in Jewish and Chriscian ltcrature:? The present study therefore seeks to fl chis lacana through a literary analysis of Nh and Lot in the flood and Sodom stories, respectively (6-9; 19}. Sinoe the scope al this study is limited to a investigation into the possible sources excyctical or ‘oxhervise) of Peters claim regarding Lot's righteousness, only seame attention is given to how Peters reference to Lot in 2 Pet 2:7-8 fanetions in its immediace and wider concents, 1.2 APPROACSL AND OUTLINE OF Tras 91% Ac the core of this stdy lcs the simple observation that ng lst was created ina vacuum, Ava minimum, all authors are broslly hluented by the veives, traditions, past, which in turn shapes their fiterary creation, What textual and works of the forms such fnftuences wake, whether implicit or explicit, eomseivus oF unconscious, 1. Bar an influence to be depends uporm the author auf bis eoueuaticative i recngnivead, nwever, a corexpondence mist be established, whether speciiie or general. Thus hroally eouceived, the presen. Uhesis sa study into ute natuce, Tin ah x survey, see Dupe 2 * See, gs Wid of Solomon 14 6} ake 1796 2057 Fel 25 & Funnsion, and elects of inner-biblical correspondences within the [lcbrcs: sexiptores. ‘paying particular alveition tn vacious fara of secip-ural reuse tac can be reasonably ascribed to an authors! intention: (Over against a readler-oriemied approach, slich iyuores the yuestivn of literary dependence and instead opts to new tw (far mone} weve i light Peach eer through a synchronic analysis, the prcscat sty fordamentally takes an author oriented approsch, for which che question of literary dependence ix erueial Rar a diachronic analysis of conespondiag texrs. Ir terms of the meulern readers role, ue difference Benveen the cwo approaches is significaee: rather than ereating meaning, Denween texts, an author-oriented approach atccinpes to identify meaning iuferent iu seripeural texrs chat in some way reuse seripuore.? ‘The proseat chapter takes up the <racstion of muthouolugy appropiate fara study on the uffects of inner-biblical correspontlenten. I addrersen such questions a5, What constitutes an instance ol seriptoral reune? What kinds of scriptural reuse ‘What terms bese boceur in the OFT? HTow dees ane iden il seripuaral zeuse ws such eserite various instances of scriptural reuse? [n what ways does seripuaual reuse Tuwetion? These “unnfaental yusotions will pave the way for the medhodological gruundsvork for dhs project. fu chapter 2 we Lusa to conser whether sufficient ‘warrant cau be found jn Gen 19 for Peter's ascription of Lot as sighteous in 3 Pet " Out noting osu" hele leases roan wp ichue she actvicy oF multiple autzors tora single wal, assole acre uae scribes an rotor alle riay riplar! te cone cagardig uns deine ths: the lcbscreeiptanee plex om anion, seaersip ce apler Ti ee bie 8, Aller a brief exegetical analysis of 2 Pet 2:7-8, severa) argnmenss concerning the status of Lats righteousness in Gen 19 are surveyed and evaluated, leaving the duce apen ws consider an aernative soutce for Peter's characterization of Lot Chapter 3 isthe beast the huss, inasmuch as argues tba: Lov's analogical selatomship to Noah pravide plusible exegetical warrant for understanding Lot's characterization in 2 Por 29-8 13 DERIRING THA WS FoR St:t4PTLHAL RISE Irs commonplace among scholars who specializs in the study af seripuaral reuse 0 Iament the ubiquitous terminological canfusion within the sub-discipfioe. Indeed, inner biblical correspondences are generally elerred Lo in one of five ways: “imtervexnualty, ‘ralirion history.’ inner-biblival allusion,’ ‘inner biblical exegesis,” and ‘inner-biblical interpretation.’ Although intetextuality is the term most sroquently used in modern bilerary studies and biblical studies,” its earlier roots in Ue work of Trench -Ruljaran semlolo jula Kristeva ime ia poor Bt for Aesctibing innoctilieal seripual reuse, which “requires a method hae is rgoros wih eagard directionality and one tha accounts for Fearures and techniques of ws the reuse hat are operative in andiquity."" Hor heunistic purposes, this stndy "Sp alunm Gilson 2016, 30. Oa the methods opal prabira thc sscompasy discussion conecaring the rlitionchips Heron ich fa the mre general, ee Wee 20, FFooman 2011, 19. Far aaron call for meibodslesical laxity with vespee eee erms Fatertexmity. merhblen exegesi and Trmerdibleal a uvien! see Mevk 2°14, who agus that the use of increas is ie cading and unethical” when ones “attempting we demonstrace — ppreseypraiege= nti, sina ationshiy abe sn” (QUT ales Yeo 2012, 06 terms ‘heriptural reune! and ‘inner biblical inerpretation’ smuenymonsly. Roth of which serve a8 umbrella terms for “inner biblical allusion’ aad ‘innes-biblica) "The distinerion between these lauer eo categories les in the fact that am exegcl inuer-biblcal allusion is but one mode af inner fiblical exeyesis it isa specie form of tacit reference which «biblical aothor may choose to wns in onder to provide an snterpetation of au ele biblical tet. Along the specitumn betvcen over scriptural cose and cover scriptural reuse, ‘quotation, acknowledging dhe source, pothaps ehrough an inerluctony formula. Jnstances af eHation are quite rare in che OT, An inmer-hiblical ‘allusion’ isa form of ntertional” and implicit (ic.,.not signaled by» citation Carma) textsl fsemnes cache mesning ofthe lem volte saya ius in biel eds i oo dssonanr ip nigind at to wll ™ Gibson 22s, 92, ough Gibson hire“ awokhe hanguaye ol orjuuta cus” aad insted sles 1 se ls ee viel inert’ ap ao eanbrala ema for Bodh ir Mie alin al ‘ner biSial eget "inne 2006, a1. Theugh Gitson uses che eam geocadonin his Ueition lust hes in a Aikcene sense“ ovarion ea owmtions} eas reuse ofkerwarcs ota phase Arora aa carer Srovh, wich aap inch se lezen of eezgesis Gr eirieper orton Whe suc el wih the {deed tox: his msmepraph quote eguialenl io nar-bibial exegesis" (7616, {ixina. Calin and quoeacon are uetd synonym dighou tiestasy oma 2011, 7 Ane aDY6, 38. nde: Finds cha Bindi autsorkl itor ra dhe concep oF llsion i asics sel nor nests” ince™ lee ovum am aur harioes Lacanscously. the Svan af hesancves wveding ean penside ne inaigat inns the lading xs" 8, 28 09 + 3) Toon ely noter however shat mm vmconecions Tia ana. iucnlenal allasion ers "woe Alcsriily diferent np a sussiea ov anconssiousepproval of tke azproprztenes o the marker she new soamea,” hich i fr ced vee fea let stabi iets te reakng of hit Ua ahe evoking ent (2¢U4. 7m. 19% CE, Lyons, 0 re tog abe usofeategory "sce eis mre dil ret and verify Ela cancous Use 3009. 1; Irena of what Rap clean “audhovialy unpremeisal echo see Hayy 18, 2012. op. referencing that seeks to transfor its source test in some way." An allusion occurs ‘when an author intentionally reuses a locutton (ie. word, phirase, clause, sentence, etc.) fram an eeslier work for “a rhetorical or strategic end?” and it often favays?) voles the wider contest af the alluded text. An inmer-biblical ‘echo is an intentional ornninteational rouse ofa Jacution thar has no semantic bezring cn or interpretive ive success or failure does significance in the ccboing text."" An. echo's coraimumics not affect an author's communicative intention, 4 “tmce’ is “an cnintentional cconncetion that is so faint as to be unatnibvenble."" The broadest category of textual dependence is rfemed ta as an ‘inilucnes,’ which fagain) acknowledges thar no text was Witcen ina vacvum, Anchors are intlnenced by and im some sense dependent inpon former literature, a phonomenan that can manifest itselfin the form of citation, allusion, echo, or trace. ‘Those categories are necessarily distinguished qualitatively rather van sprantitarively. In other words, na attempt ix made Lo differentiate citation, afusion, and echa on the basis of ward count!” Selecting quantitulive etiteria cannot escape a "CH alison ineery allusion by Abrams *4 ve reftenes npc a indies, co a person, plies or event, ore wnetherhreary work or pastas” CATT AK ef sa He ler deine Ber acon af 0 L516, 197 M Gibsor 204% 1 FE, Gens “un eb 3a ti to Tha ray uss ie dove Tabs su joa reuse of aan eatce work, hich onda or ph Ace ruc exer eerpreive signiticmee in wing ees” (21M aes eral ale TTounas, who agess ua 2 ccho [sno semauticallenstermativ.”thorgt he nceerth eas ecg ay elie alae adalat ame al seh” (2103, emphasis ade "Gibson 2016, 13 jam: *Theretove, fr his study rule sll be avbicuiy se shat swebitin ve moar seveterery bk ea pron est fh sl view een tuna, 8 wil be bet an aise” "9008, 16 77. alee tight. Car he areas tht llow, see Gib 2016, 4-19 degree of arhitrarircss, nor is it helpful in discerning becween instances of intentional seriptural rouse from instances of shared language that ate due to 3 comavon source, common expression, end saan. Montver such enitenia inevitably relepate what nay bea powerful, clear, onc-wordafhasion usa mene ceo, and they ful un account fo the syntacical and graammaticl changes thal ollen accompany seriptorl rune (ox inverting one or more elernens ofthe source tex, amin and/or adding promonninal sulises}, Although the definitions provided above assume that a duatiun, allusion, and echo possess at feast ane share Incutin with ‘te nouren text, the extegories ase fundamentally conceived in cerms of formal murkers und duyrue oP authorial intentionalicy and explicimess."™ 1.4 JENTIPYING 4D ASSESSING EVIDENCE 208 Scaiertitas, ELSE 118 important vo acknowledge at the optsct that an inner-hiblical correspundence ‘could be due Lo any numie: of factars besides an author's intention, such as @ ‘common source, a similar tradirion-history, stoek vocabulary, or shaved expressions thac were part ofa “shared straim of linguistic Ladition,”™ cr pevhaps sheer coincidence.” But ic ino less important to recipe that ube reader has ac his disposal several criteria chat can he employed ( establish atore firmly an objective case of seriproral rewse 5 ine Toeuin deus naLenca, of ours, thae his isa oe Ise, tear asicarion must posses Fein: condition. Cac wil never be comprised uf ay pigtbane 1985, 785 * Ganson 2016, 4 Kline 2016.23, Since canes of elation ate reaively clear, iusotix as the auzhor explicit acknowledges the source uf Ue citation, se turn our attention to identifsing and assessing cvilence for ocher ius vf scriptural ceuse, Possibly “ube single most important thetoc" for cunfirminy su intentional, iner-Liblical enreespondence is the presence of shared lexemes.? The prubability 07 seriptural reuse ay suele is Increased if the shared Jexemes ace caze. This is especially truy ithe avutior had at his disposal ‘one or more semantically equivalent escmes wo crapkay instead al the rare fenecie Yet comtext must be the deciding factor in establishing a wall ease of sevipiural ceuse via the employment of rare words, since (for cxarmple} cvincidennce is abeays a possibility for the best explanation, Speviticaly, ifs wxts possess bexieal comespondences, the probability of scriplucil reuse is her: ineneaned if boul wexts also share similar themes. motifs, structures, nudfor historival and rhetorical contexts" though a strict lexical eprrespurulence cau sill accor i Uwe absence of ‘these shared clerments.” Comeersely, a delilmerate connection betseen (wo (exes cai. occur on the basis of shewatit and comeptsa! cotrespondences alone; shaved Innguage is neither a mecessary uve suficienl condition for sexiptusal reuse,"* * Lonard 2068, 24660 too ler: “AL cm agree chit Teas ites ty seer ro messune pops interssauial laionskips” 12613. 303 Of, © Lonard 00d, 354 53; Liuns 20% * ar Leonards ah ercton for leering am iner-bitcl aston: “Shared language ele eouteace suggests asunger voce sie de stone fanglage sat 612058, 230 “pee | orcs cee nel ighthexherion:°(71 Shared language nesd net 32 accompanicl by shored Sdecigy t stabih a ewnmection. 18 Shae ‘anny me te ace pati? Wy shared form tn ental casio [2008 246 ""Teontananngine shat sock rerrespelences ae bere wr llr spe {preaueahlylatons a sotae Kind} ofthe evoked ate eeeopizede “On seogized other conmetsion euncepual, Fewati stretaeat ov alec 8) eortiines cias ai HheBe leanenie fee Mar nay becom ebverrals