No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
In recent years, scholars have maintained that sections of the genuine Pauline epistles (especially 1 and 2 Corinthians) and even entire epistles are selfapologies in which Paul defends his apostleship. In the ancient sources, the term “apology” is not restricted to self-defense; the most characteristic Jewish Hellenistic apologies were propaganda on behalf of the law rather than an author's defense against personal accusations. Some fifty years ago, Günther Bornkamm proposed that Paul adapted and modified Jewish Hellenistic apologetic traditions in Rom 1:18 — 3:21. For the most part the thesis of Bornkamm's article and its implications for interpreting Romans have been benignly neglected; even those who accept it only emphasize its pertinence specifically for Romans 1–3. Ernst Käsemann, for instance, believes that with Romans 4, Paul fully embraces “rabbinic methods” and other more traditional Jewish modes of argumentation. This article challenges Käsemann's claim and affirms that Romans 4 is best understood as apologetic theology.
1 See Dahl, Nils A., “Paul and the Church at Corinth According to 1 Corinthians 1:10–4:21,” in idem, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977) 51–53Google Scholar; Chance, J. Bradley, “Paul's Apology to the Corinthians,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 9 (1982) 145–55Google Scholar; Richard, Earl, “Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II Cor 3:1–4:6,” RB 88 (1981) 340–67.Google Scholar
2 Most significant is Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).Google Scholar
3 See Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 338–440.Google Scholar
4 Bornkamm, Günther, “Die Offenbarung des Zornes Gottes (Röm 1–3),” in idem, Das Ende des Gesetzes (Munich: Kaiser, 1953).Google Scholar See the discussion of this pivotal article and the extension of the argument to include the rest of Romans 3 in Guerra, Anthony J., “Romans 3:29–30 and the Apologetic Tradition” (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986) 42–85.Google Scholar
5 See Käsemann, Ernst, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 105.Google Scholar
6 In addition to a sporadic use in commentaries and journal articles, one finds that standard introductions to the New Testament, histories of early Christianity, and manuals of early Christian and Patristic literature frequently employ the terms “apology” and “apologetic.” See inter alia, Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984)Google Scholar; Goodspeed, Edgar J., A History of Early Christian Literature (rev. Grant, Robert M.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testment, vols. 1 and 2; Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Utrecht/Antwerp: Spectrum, 1975)Google Scholar; Altaner, Berthold, Patrologie (Freiburg: Herder &; Herder, 1978).Google Scholar
7 Above all the work of John J. Collins is to be admired in this regard; see The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979)Google Scholar; The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984).Google Scholar
8 Paul D. Hanson in an earlier stage of the work of defining apocalypse made a similar distinction between apocalypse and apocalyptic; see Hanson, “Apocalypticism,” IDBSup, 29.
9 Aristobulus may have invented the apologetic topos that Greek philosophers plagiarized Moses (Eusebius Praep. Ev. 13.12.1). The assertion of agreement with an ancient or classical source rarely satisfies the apologist, and there is the tendency to argue for priority.
10 From the classical side, Socrates became a favorite of early Christian apologists no doubt in part because of the similarity of the circumstances of his death (i.e., capital punishment) with that of Jesus as well as the charge of atheism levied against Socrates and early Christians. See Wehofer, T., Die Apologie Justins des Philosophen und Märtyrers in literar-historischer Beziehung zum erstenmal untersucht (RQSup 6, 1897) 90–106. From the biblical quarter, Abraham was seized upon in both Jewish and Christian apologetic literature (see below) and later in Islamic apologetics as well.Google Scholar
11 The debate as to whether the apologist is addressing outsiders or insiders is not a genuine issue. The apologist has a dual intent: to confirm the believer's confidence in the truth and to convert the nonbeliever to the same. Moreover, this dual intent is rooted in the existential and social situation of the apologist who is deeply rooted in the “outsider” traditions and now must reconcile in himself as well as for the “insiders” and “outsiders” the old and new ways of being. The ambassadorial role is common to Jewish and Christian apologists; see Philo Leg. Gaium; Justin Apol. 1.1.1; Athenagoras Supp. 1.3.
12 Perhaps one of the most common misunderstandings of the apologetic phenomenon is that it is primarily a reactive or defensive event. The etymology of the term itself abets this misunderstanding. Apologetic literature has a primarily protreptic thrust. See Pellegrini, M., Studi su l'antica apologetica (Rome, 1947) 12–23; Koester, History and Literature, 338, 340.Google Scholar
13 Early Christian apologetics sought to exclude Jews on the grounds that their monotheism was purportedly impure or compromised; see Aristides Apologia 14.3–4.
14 In apologetic literature the one-God topos sanctions the ideals of social unity and the political order; see Guerra, “Romans 3:29–30,” 27–37.
15 Ellis, E. Earle, Prophecy and Hermeneutic (WUNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1978).Google Scholar In an earlier work (Paul's Use of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: T. &; T. Clark, 1957]) Ellis discussed the source and form of the Pauline scriptural quotations.Google Scholar
16 Ellis, Prophecy, 152. Ellis reiterates the position he espoused in his Paul's Use.
17 Ibid., 154.
18 Borgen, Peder, Bread from Heaven (2d ed.; NovTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 169–73. Borgen argues that Romans 4 also evinces a midrashic pattern.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Ibid., 50.
20 Ellis, Prophecy, 192.
21 Bultmann, Rudolf, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &; Ruprecht, 1910).Google Scholar
22 Stowers, Stanley, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).Google Scholar
23 Ibid., 155.
24 Ibid., 165.
25 The use of the first person plural is indicative of the apologetic context; see my discussion of Rom 3:8 in “Romans 3:29–30,” 78–80.
26 Stowers, Diatribe, 171.
27 Ibid., 173. Stowers devotes only two pages (172–73) to this issue.
28 Ibid., 183.
29 This impression could be corrected if one were to elaborate on the precarious status of philosophical schools in the Roman Empire in the first century (e.g., under Domitian), but Stowers does not do so.
30 Cf., e.g., 2 Cor 11:23–33.
31 Some of the main contestants in the debate were Cullmann, Oscar, Salvation in History (New York: Harper &; Row, 1967)Google Scholar; Munck, Johannes, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Atlanta: John Knox, 1977)Google Scholar; Klein, Günther, “Römer 4 und die Idee der Heilsgeschichte,” EvTh 23 (1963) 424–47Google Scholar; Wilckens, Ulrich, “Zu Römer 3:21–4:25: Antwort an G. Klein,” EvTh 24 (1964) 586–610Google Scholar; Conzelmann, Hans, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus: Theologie oder Anthropologie?” EvTh 28 (1968) 389–404Google Scholar; Stendahl, Krister, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963) 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stendahl's response to E. Käsemann's critique (see below) of this article in Stendahl's Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 127–32Google Scholar; Käsemann, Ernst, “Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans,” in idem, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 60–78.Google Scholar
32 Boers, Hendrickus, “The Significance of Abraham for the Christian Faith,” in idem, Theology out of the Ghetto (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 74–104.Google Scholar
33 See Boers's quoting of Klein, in “Significance of Abraham,” 78, and also Käsemann, “The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4,“Perspectives, 86.
34 Boers, “Significance of Abraham,” 78.
35 Ibid., 86.
36 Ibid., 87.
37 Perhaps Boers has in mind Käsemann's objection to an immanental view of salvation history; but this is a rather distorted characterization of salvation history.
38 Note that Sanders, E. P. strongly objects (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Phildaelphia: Fortress, 1977]) to a works-righteousness view of Palestinian Judaism.Google Scholar
39 Boers, “Significance of Abraham,” 82–83.
40 Boers thinks (Ibid., 85–88) that Paul allows a certain justification in works at Rom 4:2 and previously at 2:13b—the doers of the law are justified.
41 Ibid., 91.
42 Ibid., 103: “It was a fundamental assumption for him that it was Christian.”
43 Likewise the presentation of Moses as a θεῖος νήρ by Philo and Josephus served the purpose of commending the Law. See Goodenough, Erwin R., An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (2d ed.; New York: Barnes &; Noble, 1963).Google Scholar
44 Note that ρχή carries the basic meanings of both origin and ruler. The apologetic motifs of the great names and of the most ancient tradition often merge in actual usage.
45 Moses, because of his inseparable identity with the Law, could not so readily be used by Paul towards this end; see, e.g., 2 Corinthians 3.
46 Paul uses the one-God topos in Romans 3 to ameliorate the divisive consequences of his christology, which separates the Pauline communities from Jews as well as Jewish Christians; see Guerra, “Romans 3:29–30,” 38–42, 83–85. Paul's appeal to the one-God topos in Rom 3:29–30 has the central function of promoting unity between Gentile and Jewish Christians.
47 Most significant for understanding Paul's use of Abraham in Romans 4 is Philo Virt. 214, where Abraham is referred to as achieving τν το νς εὕρεσιν..
48 Ibid., 1.7.1; Philo De gig. 13ff. On the historical situation which prompted this apologetic tradition, see Knox, W. L., “Abraham and the Quest for God,” HTR 28 (1935) 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 Eupolemus in Alexander Polyhistor apud Eusebius Praep. Ev. 9.17–18.
50 Ward, Roy, “The Works of Abraham: James 2:14–26,“HTR 61 (1968) 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 Gal 3:6 is a complete parallel with LXX Gen 15:6 except that the latter has “Abram” and the former “Abraam.” Rom 4:3 also has the lengthened form of the personal name and adds a δέ before the name. Jas 2:23 is identical to Rom 4:3. It is possible that Paul consciously used the lengthened form of the name anticipating his opponents’ retort that it was only after Abraham's circumcision, and not after his merely believing God, that Abram received the new name which signified his new status before God (see Justin Dial. 113.2–3). The δέ may then have been added without reflection in Romans, while James's retaining it may indicate, as his exegesis certainly does, that he has Paul's text in mind, and perhaps even in hand, as he advances his alternative interpretation of Gen 15:6.
52 At Rom 8:36 Paul quotes Ps 43:23, accorded to the Sons of Korah by the Rabbis who accepted literally the scriptural statements concerning authorship. Paul's understanding of the authorship of the various Psalms also agreed with this literal reading of his day. Cf. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York: Scribner's, 1884) 29.Google Scholar
53 Here, however, Israel denotes the nation and not the patriarch Jacob.
54 See Barrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last (New York: Scribner's, 1962) 68.Google Scholar
55 See Dirichlet, Gustav L., De Veterum Macarismis (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 14; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1914) 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bertram, and Hauck, , “μακάριος,“TDNT 4 (1967) 362–70.Google Scholar
56 See Sir 36:17 where the more common εὐλογία is used instead of μακαρισμός.
57 Georgi, Dieter, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (trans, and rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 148–51.Google Scholar
58 Paul uses the word πς over thirty times in Romans. Ironically, Paul is painfully aware that the Christ event, which intended to overcome the barrier between Jews and the nations, has created further divisions—so Romans 9–11.
59 See Knox, “Abraham,” 56–60.
60 Schrenk, , “πατήρ,” TDNT 5 (1967) 950–51.Google Scholar
61 See Sasse, , “κοσμέω,” TDNT 3 (1965) 888.Google Scholar
62 Note that Paul stresses the noetic dimension of Abraham's faith in 4:19, in accordance with the apologetic emphasis on the knowledge of Abraham which allows him to discover God (cf. Josephus Ant. 1.154–68).
63 Paul attempts a universalizing reinterpretation of σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ in Romans 4. In 4:13 the universal statement τ κληρονόμον αὐτν εἶναι κόσμου already mentioned is placed immediately after τῷ σπέρματι αὐτο (Abraham's). In 4:16 Paul adds the universalizing πς in attributive position to σπέρμα. In its final occurrence in Romans 4 σπέρμα is explained by Paul in the light of Gen 17:5, πατέρα πολλν θνν. In Romans 9, however, Paul uses the expression σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ as a restricting term. Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ is not equivalent to πάντα τέκνα, for it excludes τ τέκνα τς σαρκός (9:7–8). Thus Paul argues against a purely ethnic definition of σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ but does not universalize it from the perspective of a secular worldview. In this sense the philosophical universalists should have the same disdain for Paul as was accorded to Aristobulus, for instance; see Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism (Philadephia: Fortress, 1981) 261. Paul still adduces a differentiating principle, albeit a theological one rather than a natural or social one. Thus the criticism with all apologetic universalizing arguments may also be made of Paul here. For this reason, I suggest that Paul's theological program be described as inclusive particularism rather than universalism. Yet, for the purposes of explaining the self-understanding of apologetics, the term universalizing as used in the description is accurate.Google Scholar
64 There is no dispute that a primary concern of New Testament apologetics is the presentation of the cross and resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the will of God. Towards this end, the synoptic gospels are constructed and their appeal to scripture (Old Testament) is in large measure to affirm this kerygma; see Lindars, Barnabas, New Testment Apologetic (London: SCM, 1961)Google Scholar; Bultmann, Rudolph, History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper &; Row, 1976) 280–82; Koester, History and Literature, 174–75.Google Scholar
65 See Guerra, “Romans 3:29–30,” chap. 2.
66 See, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 118–19.
67 See Gen 17:17.
68 In Rom 4:25, when ὅς, refers to Jesus, it is the subject of passive verbs.
69 See Hayes, Richard, “A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,“NovT 27 (1985) 86.Google Scholar
70 C. E. B. Cranfield understands Romans 4 to follow upon 3:27: “The function of this section [4:1–25] is to confirm the truth of what was said in the first part of 3:27” (Romans, 1. 224). Käsemann also stresses the relationship between Rom 4:2 and 3:27 (Romans, 106). Otto Michel points to a connection between Rom 4:1–8 with its two scriptural quotations and 3:21 and 3:31, but he does not mention 3:29–30 (Der Brief an die Römer [MeyerK; 4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &; Ruprecht, 1955] 98).Google Scholar
71 See Cranfield, Romans, 202 n. 2. The twofold designation used here for the Old Testament as a whole is also found in Matt 5:17; 7:12; 22:40.
72 See Moxnes, Halvor, Theology in Conflict (NovTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73 See, e.g., Philo Spec. leg. 1.152.
74 Betz's suggestion (Galatians, 173) that the application of the ancient rule τ ὅμοιον τῷ μοίῳ φίλον to understand Gal 3:20 may be more relevant to Rom 3:29–30. That Paul does not distinguish between the attributes and substance of God is seen by vss 30 and 26b: God is just and is justifying; God is one and acts as God towards all.
75 See Schrenk, D. G., “Der Römerbrief als Missionsdokument,” in Aus Theologie und Geschichte der Reformierten Kirche: Festgabe für E. F. Karl Müller (Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen, 1933) 39–72.Google Scholar
76 See Bassler, Jouette M., “Divine Impartiality in Paul's Letter to the Romans,” NovT 26 (1984) 43–58.Google Scholar
77 Having raised an issue of the relation of God to the uncircumcised in vss 29–30, Paul's mention of Abraham in 4:1 is totally unsurprising. See above on the role of Abraham with respect to proselytes.
78 Wilckens, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer (EKKNT 6; Cologne: Benziger, 1978) 1. 261–62.Google Scholar
79 For a list of texts with Jewish and Hellenistic Jewish interpretations of Gen 15:6 opposed to that of Paul, see Wilckens, Brief, n. 832.
80 See Rengstorf, , “σημεῖον,” TDNT 7 (1971) 258.Google Scholar
81 Paul's “universalism,” of course, sets up another standard of exclusion as well as inclusion.
82 Vs 15 may, however, be a digression unless it is an allusion to the fact that Abraham lived before the time of the Mosaic law, in which case vs 16 would follow logically affirming that on the basis of his faith (in a time when there was no law) Abraham confirmed the promise for Jews and Gentiles.
83 See Käsemann, Romans, 110; Cranfield, Romans, 1. 231. Note that Gen 15:5 (Rom 4:18b) is the last direct quotation of scripture before the repetition of the clause λογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνη from Gen 15:6 (Rom 4:22).
84 Cf. Gen 17:17: “Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ “
85 Note that 3:29a is a rhetorical question, and thus μόνον has the same import as οὐ μόνον in 4:12, 16, and 23.
86 The construction of πιστεύω with the preposition πί, followed by the accusative participle with article and concluded by the accusative direct object with article of the participle, is precisely paralleled in Rom 4:5 where the object of belief is also God—τν δικαιοντα.
87 For a discussion of how Paul deals with conflict between the concrete promise of the land and his spiritualized interpretation of the promise, see Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974).Google Scholar