Paul and Midrash

David John Marotta writes:
> I . . .have come to the conclusion that Paul
> is not using Midrash techniques, which I would call wrong without the
> quotation marks.

I must admit that I have deleted some of the postings on this discussion
without reading them, so if this has already been addressed and I missed
it, I apologize.  But I would be curuious to know from you, David, why
and how you have come to your conclusion.  What are Midrashic techniques
and what features characterize them?  In what specific ways is Paul's
argument different from Midrash, i.e. what features are in Paul's argument
that never occur in Midrash, and what features always appear in Midrash but
do not appear in Paul?  I also would pose the corresponding question to
those who are arguing the other side of this issue.  Why do you think
Paul is using Midrash?  My own exposure to Midrash is quite limited, but
I get the impression that Paul is not wholly like Midrash while not wholly
unlike it either.

Stan Anderson
The Claremont Graduate School
Institute for Antiquity and Christianity