A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post asking why the Apostle Paul never used the Book of Jonah in support of his argument for the Gentile mission when it would seem that there was no book more qualified to address Israel’s hardened heart toward their neighbors. This led Matt Emerson to write one noting the same thing can be said of important biblical characters like Joseph and Joshua who are never mentioned in the whole of the New Testament! In our exchange in the comments he mentioned another solution that I thought I would post here to see what everyone (or anyone) has to say.
Matt suggested that since the Book of the Twelve was considered a unified whole it may not have crossed his mind to cite Jonah specifically since we have quotations from books like Habakkuk, Hosea, and Joel that are part of the twelve.
I don’t know enough about the Book of the Twelve or how it was used in Second Temple interpretive schemes to know if this is a likely answer or not. Any thoughts?
__________
At this time the best response has been from J. Michael Rios who wrote,
” I suspect that the answer stems from the interpretation of Jonah, which isn’t primarily about a challenge to mission, but rather about condemnation of Israel’s reticence to fulfill mission. Hence, Paul doesn’t quote it with respect to his Gentile mission because it isn’t a source that bolsters that argument. (See also Jesus’ references to Jonah, which always bear an edge of lurking condemnation.) Hence, if I were looking for Paul to use Jonah in his writings, I would look for passages that condemn (national) Israel’s resistance to the call of the gospel. But since Paul desires, rhetorically, to invite in and not condemn national Israel (e.g., Rom 10:1), this is something he doesn’t do. Hence, no Jonah in Paul.”
the archives near Emmaus 
BTW, I think Michael’s comment is part of the answer. I merely wanted to add to it.
Right, there is nothing contradictory between the two answers. I am wondering if anyone has studied how Second Temple and/or NT authors have used the Book of the Twelve and if it is ever done in such a way that the metalepsis of a quotation should make the reader think of the book as a whole rather than think of the individual parts.
I wonder if Seitz mentions it in The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets. I don’t recall him ever actually discussing the NT’s use of the Book though.
I’d have to see if my seminary library has it.
My library doesn’t have a copy of Seitz. 😦
Hey Brian, I’m glad my earlier comment made some sense! (If you’re interested, feel free to check out my blog at http://jmichaelrios.wordpress.com/)
I wonder if this hasn’t become a bit of a red herring, because the presupposition here is that Paul would feel the need to quote from every book in the bible. But why would he feel that need? He clearly uses the passages he quotes as a way to bolster his particular arguments, not as a way to include the entire canon of scripture in his writings. The best illustration of this, ironically, is his reference to the Greek poet in Acts 17:28–Paul will use whatever is best for his current situation. And therefore the answer to why Paul quotes from some passages and not others is that he felt, given his particular arguments, that he had quoted from the best passages to make his points.
I’m fairly sure that the scholastic understanding of the Book of the Twelve is rather limited at this time; there isn’t a great deal of information like what you’re looking for. I think, from the studies of individual quotations, however, that NT authors who quote passages from these books do have a sense that they are invoking the theology of the individual book, rather than the collection. For example, Matthew’s quotation of Zechariah in Mtt 26:31 evokes movements from Zechariah and not the surrounding books. Similarly, quotations from Daniel in the NT focus on Daniel’s theology and don’t really introduce Megilloth texts. The answer you seek is, I think, found in the usage of the texts.
Sorry for the long winded response 🙂
Jeremy
Jeremy,
In general it could become a red herring. I agree that there is no necessity for Paul to quote everything from the OT. The Jonah question has been important mostly because of how I have understood the message of the book as well as the gospel of Paul. They seem to work together so well that I wrestled with why Paul never cited Jonah (though, again, your reasoning is sound).
I decided to throw this question out because it was worth pondering once Matt asked it. I haven’t taken the time to look at how the Book of the Twelve is used, but from the example you cite, and the few I found in Romans, I tend to think Paul focuses on the individual books as well.
Also, thanks for linking your website. I will put in our list of links on the right hand side and in my Google Reader.