1 On the pessimistic end of the spectrum, see Thackeray, H. St. J., The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan, 1900) 69–71Google Scholar (Paul's interpretation is ‘extremely fanciful and sophistical’); Schoeps, H. J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (London: Lutterworth, 1961) 181Google Scholar (Paul's interpretation is ‘in contradiction’ to scripture); and Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983) 73Google Scholar (Paul interprets ‘against … original intention’). Among those who wish to exonerate Paul, see Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillian, 1914) 142Google Scholar (‘grammatical accuracy’ is beside the point); Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 71–3Google Scholar (Paul is neither ‘ignorant’ nor a ‘charlatan’); Hays, R. B., The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Biblical Resource Series; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002 ²) 180Google Scholar (Paul's reading is ‘internally consistent and compelling’); and Wright, N. T., ‘Messiahship in Galatians? (2012)’, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978–2013 (London: SPCK, 2013) 510–46, at 531Google Scholar (who bats away ‘the regular scholarly sneering at Paul's apparently bizarre exegetical habits’). Better is the more nuanced description offered by Watson, F. B., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016 ²) 175–6Google Scholar (who recognises in Paul's interpretation a ‘conjunction between deduction and induction, scriptural exegesis and the Christian gospel’).

2 Cf. the identification of the messiah as σπέρματος Δαυίδ in Rom 1.3. On other relevant Jewish literature, see below.

3 Novenson, M. V., The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and its Users (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) 18Google Scholar.

4 See e.g. Baur, F. C., Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, vol. ii (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 125–6Google Scholar; Wrede, W., Paul (London: Philip Green, 1907) 86Google Scholar; Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel from its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (New York: Macmillan, 1955) 519–31Google Scholar; Scholem, G., ‘Toward an Understanding of the Messianic Idea in Judaism’, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Shocken, 1971) 1–36, at 1–2Google Scholar; MacRae, G., ‘Messiah and Gospel’, Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. Neusner, J., Green, W. S. and Frerichs, E. S.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 169–85, at 171–2Google Scholar. Note also the programmatic critique of this tradition in Pauline scholarship, Novenson, M. V., Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Stuckenbruck, L. T., ‘Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism’, The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (ed. Porter, S. E.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007) 90–113, at 113Google Scholar.

6 Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas’, 113.

7 Compare Fishbane's description of inner-biblical ‘aggadic exegesis’ as entailing ‘an ongoing interchange between a hermeneutics of continuity and a hermeneutics of challenge and innovation’ (Fishbane, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 428Google Scholar). This is also apropos of messianic interpretation.

8 See further Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas’, 113 n. 44; Oegema, G. S., The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kokhba (JSPSup 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 305–6Google Scholar; and Novenson, Grammar of Messianism, 196. Contrast e.g. Scholem, ‘Toward an Understanding’, 2.

9 Dahl, N. A., ‘Sources of Christological Language’, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of the Christological Debate (ed. Juel, D. H.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 113–36, at 132–3Google Scholar. Dahl is drawing upon Ludwig Wittgenstein's ‘notion of a “language game”’. This application of Wittgenstein's theory of language is explored further in Novenson, Grammar of Messianism, 11–36.

10 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 53.

11 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 55. For the Mishnah I follow the Hebrew text of Blackman, P., ed., Mishnayoth (New York: Judaica, 1983)Google Scholar; translation modified from Danby, H., ed., The Mishnah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933) 306Google Scholar.

12 Notably, the way the idiom is reused in Mishnah Soṭah does not correspond to its meaning in the psalm. In the former the phrase is a temporal clause indicating the future arrival of an anointed one, while in the latter it is a synecdoche for the anointed king.

13 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 54.

14 For CD I cite the text of 4Q265 per Baumgarten, J. M. et al. , eds., Qumran Cave 4.xxv: Halakhic Texts (DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999)Google Scholar; translation modified from F. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, E. J. C., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997)Google Scholar.

15 For 4Q252 I follow the text of Brooke, G. J. et al. , eds., Qumran Cave 4.xvii: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)Google Scholar; translation modified from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls.

16 For 2 Baruch I follow the Syriac text of Dedering, S. and Bidawid, R. J., eds., Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version 4.3; Leiden: Brill, 1973)Google Scholar; translation modified from that of A. F. J. Klijn in Charlesworth, OTP.

17 Fitzmyer, J. A., The One Who Is to Come (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007) 62Google Scholar. The Greek is Theodotian Daniel; no comparable phrase appears in OG Daniel. As with the reappropriation of the phrase עקבות משׁיחק from MT Ps 89.52, here also the proliferation of such temporal clauses occurs in new literary contexts which are markedly different from the original literary context from which the idiom is drawn.

18 The Latin omits the clause ‘who … David’. For 4 Ezra I follow the Syriac text of Dedering and Bidawid, Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras; and the Latin text of Bensly, R. L., ed., The Fourth Book of Ezra: The Latin Version Edited from the MSS (TS 3.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895)Google Scholar. Translation modified from that of B. M. Metzger in Charlesworth, OTP.

19 Cf. Pss. Sol. 18.5. Translation modified from R. B. Wright in Charlesworth, OTP. On the messiah of Psalms of Solomon, see Charlesworth, J. H., ‘Introduction: Messianic Ideas’, Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Charlesworth, J. H. et al. ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 29–32Google Scholar; and Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas’, 93–7.

20 Cf. Frg. Tg. Gen 49.11, where the relevant infinitive reads למיקם. For Targum Pseudo-Jonathan I follow the Aramaic text of Clarke, E. G., ed., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (New York: Ktav, 1984)Google Scholar; for Fragmentary Targum I follow the Aramaic text of Klein, M. L., ed., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to their Extant Sources (AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980)Google Scholar; translation modified from Levey, S. H., The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974) 9, 11Google Scholar. The targumim contain layers of tradition, some from the period directly relevant to Paul, some later. However, none of targumic texts adduced here are integral to my argument, and in every case they illustrate a feature of messiah discourse extant in earlier literature. On the provenance and dating of the various targumim and their use as evidence for early scriptural interpretation, see Cook, E. M., ‘The Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the Targums’, A Companion to Early Biblical Interpretation in Judaism (ed. Henze, M.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012) 92–117Google Scholar.

21 For Targum of the Prophets I follow the Aramaic text of Sperber, A., ed., The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, vols. i–iii (Leiden: Brill, 2004)Google Scholar; translation modified from Levey, The Messiah, 93. MT Mic 5.3 reads ‘and he shall stand (ועמד)’. This motif is relatively frequent in the targumim; cf. Frg. Tg. Num 24.7; Tg. Ps.-J. Num 24.17,19; and Tg. Neb. 2 Sam 23.3.

22 For 2 Samuel I follow the Syriac text of Dirksen, P. B. and de Boer, P. A. H., eds., Judges, Samuel (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version 2.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978)Google Scholar.

23 Cf. Oegema, Anointed and his People, 301.

24 Other candidates might include Amos 9.11: ‘On that day I will raise up (אקים, ἀναστήσω) the booth of David’; LXX Isa 11.10 in the Greek: ‘… the root of Jesse, who also will arise (ἀνιστάμενος) to rule the Gentiles’; and Jer 23.5: ‘and I will raise up (והקמתי, ἀναστήσω) for David a righteous branch’. The first two appear in Oegema's list of scriptures often featured in later messiah texts (Oegema, Anointed and his People, 302). John Collins is convinced that Jer 23.5 ought to be added to this list (Collins, J. J., ‘Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism’, JR 93 (2013) 90–1)Google Scholar.

25 For Numbers I follow the Syriac text of Lane, D. J. et al. , eds., Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1991)Google Scholar.

26 Interestingly, Tg. Neb. 2 Sam 23.1 omits the verb ‘raised up (הקם)’ which is present in the MT, and Tg. Neb. 2 Sam 23.3 includes the phrase ‘destined to arise (דיקום)’ which is absent in the MT. Cf. Levey, The Messiah, 40.

27 See Betz, O., ‘Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu’, NovT 6 (1963) 32 n. 4Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., ‘The Concept of the Davidic “Son of God” in Acts and its Old Testament Background’, Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1966) 186–93, at 190Google Scholar; Hayes, J. H., ‘The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology’, Int 22 (1968) 333–45, at 342–5Google Scholar; Duling, D. C., ‘The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity: Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis’, NTS 20 (1973) 55–77, at 71, 74–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilcox, M., ‘The Promise of the “Seed” in the New Testament and the Targumim’, New Testament Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader (ed. Porter, S. E. and Evans, C. A.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 275–92, at 284, 292–3Google Scholar. Cf. 2 Tim 2.8.

28 It is almost certain, however, that the language of 2 Sam 7.12 did not influence messianic interpretation in the composition of the Targum of the Prophets since it is not given a messianic gloss there. See Levey, The Messiah, 37.

29 Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 62; Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 55.

30 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 54. The relevant Damascus Document passages (CD xii, 23–xiii, 1; xiv, 19) use the verb עמד, which is also found in MT Isa 11.10: ‘On that day, the root of Jesse, who shall stand (עמד) as a signal to the peoples …’ The relation of the Qumran texts to this Davidic oracle, however, is complicated by the issue of bi-messianism, on which see Collins, J. J., The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010) 79–109Google Scholar.

31 See Oegema, Anointed and his People, 300–3, followed by Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 57–8.

32 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 55.

33 On the ambiguous word שׁילה, see Westermann, C., Genesis 37–50: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 230–1Google Scholar; on its messianic interpretation, see Grypeou, E. and Spurling, H., The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2013) 376–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See Dahl, N. A., ‘Contradictions in Scripture’, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1977) 172Google Scholar. Mußner, F., Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1977 ³) 246Google Scholar mentions the similar idiom found in other Jewish literature but ignores Dahl's suggestion concerning Gen 49.10. Dahl is followed by Juel, D., Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 86Google Scholar, who also merely suggests the allusion and presents no argument for it. Note also the correspondence indicated by Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (London: Yale University Press, 2003) 176–7Google Scholar.

35 See the apparatus of Wevers, J. W., ed., Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974)Google Scholar.

36 See e.g. Justin, Dial. 120.3–4 and the comments in Salvesen, A., ‘Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations in Greek and Latin’, Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (ed. Bockmuehl, M. and Paget, J. Carleton; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 245–61, at 247Google Scholar.

37 The ambiguity of the שׁילה in MT Gen 49.10 especially invited later flexibility in the interpretation of the phrase. For example, MT Ezek 21.32 (ET 21.27) interprets שׁילה as אשׁר־לו, ‘whose right it is’, on which see Duling, ‘The Promises to David’, 59. On the use of Gen 49.10 in Ezek 21.32, see also Moran, W. L., ‘Gen 49,10 and Its Use in Ez 21, 32’, Bib 39 (1958) 416–25Google Scholar, where Moran describes Ezekiel's use of the Genesis oracle as ‘free’, ‘creative’ and ‘original’ (422). Note also the similarity in syntax between Gal 3.19 and the relevant phrase's rendering in LXX Ezek 21.32: ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ᾧ καθήκει. As with the variant of LXX Gen 49.10, the subject of ἔλθῃ is defined by a relative clause, with ᾧ functioning as the indirect object of a verb with continuing result.

38 Cf. Dahl, ‘Contradictions in Scripture’, 172 and Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 86.

39 For Gal 3.19, ἄχρις ἄν rather than ἄχρις οὗ is attested by B 0278. 33. 1175. 2464, and Clement. If this variant were accepted, it would constitute the only instance of the idiom in Paul, and Paul's expression would be somewhat closer to that found in LXX Gen 49.10, though probably insignificantly so. What can be said is that the construction of composite phrases meaning ‘until’ preceding subjunctives was fluid. See BDF §383.2. On this variant, see Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (KEK 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951 ¹¹) 108 n. 1Google Scholar.

40 See Weiss, D. J., Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910 ⁹) 359Google Scholar and Lindemann, A., Der erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9.1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 347Google Scholar. Also, in this connection Allo, E. B., Saint Paul, première épitre aux Corinthiens (Études Biblique; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956 ²) 408Google Scholar notes an apparent preference in Paul for the preposition/conjunction ἄχρι(ς) over μέχρι(ς), the former appearing fourteen times in the undisputed epistles and the latter five times. The same preference holds true to a greater extent concerning the composite phrase ἕως ἄν, which appears only in 1 Cor 4.5. Allo makes no mention of this, however – a curious omission given the wording of LXX Ps 109.1. Further, a small difference between Gal 3.19 and 1 Cor 15.25 is the appending of the moveable sigma to ἄχρι in Gal 3.19 according to Hellenistic Greek convention. This is unusual in the NT, occurring only in Gal 3.19 and Heb 3.13. It may merely be a stylistic adjustment since ἄχρι there precedes a word beginning with a vowel, though the appearance of ἄχρι οὗ in Rom 11.25; 1 Cor 11.26; and 15.25 would betray stylistic inconsistency. This inconsistency may suggest that Paul had access to a Greek version of Gen 49.10 reading ἄχρις οὗ, but this is speculative. See BDAG s.v. ἄχρι and BDF §21.

41 This allusion is acknowledged by Gräßer, E., Der zweite Brief an die Korinther: Kapitel 1,1–7,16 (ÖTK 8.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2002) 138Google Scholar, who offers no comment on Paul's alteration of the Septuagint's wording. So also Furnish, V., II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 207–8Google Scholar and Lang, F., Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994) 274CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 On this, see Stanley, C. D., Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 259–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Paul's preserving of ἕως in Rom 8.11 but neither in 1 Cor 15.25 nor especially in 2 Cor 3.14, where LXX Deut 29.3 is also cited, may be explained by his use of ‘ein traditionelles “Florilegium” in Rom 11.8–10, as suggested by Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer: Röm 6–11 (EKK 6.2; Zürich: Benziger, 1972) 238Google Scholar.

43 Cf. BDAG s.v. ἕως 1aβ and s.v. ἄχρι 1bα. Bonnard, P., L’épitre de saint Paul aux Galates (CNT 9; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1953) 73Google Scholar insists that Paul's use of ἄχρις in Gal 3.19 is ‘strictement temporel et non logique’. While it is unclear what it would mean for ἄχρις to have a ‘logical’ function, the difference between the temporal connotations of the uses of ἄχρις in Gal 3.19 and ἕως ἄν in 1 Cor 4.5 is clear. On the supposed curtailing of the law's applicability at the coming of the messiah in Jewish tradition, see Fredriksen, P., ‘Judaism, the Circumcision of the Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’, JTS 42 (1991) 532–64, at 550–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 See also Rom 1.13; 5.13; 8.22; 11.25; 1 Cor 4.11; 15.25; 2 Cor 3.14; Gal 3.19; 4.2; and Phil 1.5–6. The two remaining uses of ἄχρι in the undisputed letters (2 Cor 10.13, 14) function differently, as spatial prepositions. The word ἄχρι does not appear in the disputed letters. Paul does use ἕως alone in the undisputed letters, sometimes with a connotation similar to his use of ἄχρι (1 Cor 1.8; 16.8; 2 Cor 3.15).

45 Thus rightly Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 86: ‘In Galatians, “offspring” (“seed”) has been inserted into the paraphrase of Gen. 49:10, confirming the link with more obvious messianic oracles like 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89, as well as with the preceding citation of Gen. 22:18.’ On Gen 49.10 as a catalyst for messianic speculation, see further Duling, ‘The Promises to David’, 59, 64; Oegema, Anointed and his People, 300–3; Salvesen, ‘Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations’, 246–7; and Gordon, ‘Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations’, 265–6.

46 Translation modified from McNamara, M., ed., Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

47 Translation modified from Levey, The Messiah, 7. See Gordon, ‘Messianism in Ancient Bible Translations’, 265–6, who suggests a significant correspondence between the Pauline topos of ‘the obedience of faith’ and Tg. Onq. Gen 49.10 (‘whom nations obey’).

48 Translation modified from Levey, The Messiah, 9.

49 Translation modified from Levey, The Messiah, 11.

50 But not always. See 1 Sam 24.11 (ET 24.10) concerning the Benjaminite king Saul (cf. 1 Sam 9.1–2) and Isa 45.1 concerning the Persian emperor Cyrus.

51 Translation modified from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls.

52 Compare MT Ps 89.4, 39 and 40, and Ps 105.6, 15, 42 and 43, on which see Gosse, B., ‘Abraham and David’, JSOT 34 (2009) 25–31, at 25–6Google Scholar.

53 On which see Wilcox, ‘The Promise of the “Seed”’, 279.

54 On which see Wilcox, ‘The Promise of the “Seed”’, 279.

55 On which see Hewitt, J. T. and Novenson, M. V., ‘Participationism and Messiah Christology in Paul’, God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright (ed. Heilig, C., Hewitt, J. T. and Bird, M. F.; WUNT ii/413; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 393–415, at 405Google Scholar.