^{page 339 note 1} ‘Adam and Christ According to Romans 5’, Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, Festschr. for O. A. Piper, ed. W. Klassen, G. F. Snyder (London, 1962), p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} Adam und Christus: exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Römer 5, 12–21 (I. Kor. 15) (W.M.A.N.T. VII, Neukirchen, 1962), pp. 168–80Google Scholar; Cf. Lengsfeld, P., Adam und Christus: die Adam Christus-Typologie im Neuen Testament und ihre dogmatische Verwendung bei M. J. Scheeben und K. Barth (Koinonia IX, Essen, 1965), pp. 76–8.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 3} ‘Das Gesetz zwischen Adam und Christus (eine theologische Studie zu Röm 5, 12–21)’, Z.T.K. LX (1963), 43, 58–60, 66Google Scholar; Bultmann, cf., Theology of the New Testament I (London, 1952), 174Google Scholar: ‘Rom. 5: 12 ff. interprets Adam's fall quite in keeping with Gnosticism, as bringing (sin and) death upon mankind’; however cf. also his ‘Adam and Christ’, p. 154, and Theology 1, 251, where his views seem closer to Brandenburger's (n.b. Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 178).

^{page 339 note 4} So Feuerer, G., Adam und Christus als Gestaltkräfte und ihr Vermächtnis an die Menschheit: zur christlichen Erbsündenlehre (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1939), pp. 94–100Google Scholar; Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 58–60Google Scholar; Shedd, R. P., Man in Community: a Study of St Paul's Application of Old Testament and Early Jewish Conceptions of Human Solidarity (London, 1958), pp. 108 f.Google Scholar; de Fraine, J., Adam and the Family of Man (New York, 1965), pp. 144 f.Google Scholar; Ligier, L., Péché d'Adam et péché du monde: le Nouveau Testament (Théologie XLVIII, Paris, 1961), p. 284Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1963), p. 129Google Scholar; cf. also Nygren, A., Der Römerbrief (Göttingen, 1951), p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 1} ‘Péchés des hommes et péchéd'Adam en Rom. v. 12’, N.T.S. XI (1964–1965), 230 f.Google Scholar; Cf. Feuillet, A., ‘Le règne de la mort et le règne de la vie (Rom. v. 12–21)’, R.B. LXXVII (1970), 482 f.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 2} Op. cit. p. 53; but Cf. Dubarle, A. M., The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin (London, 1964), pp. 96 f.Google Scholar: he holds that the verse fits into its context as a sarcastic comment rather than a dogmatic statement. It may be granted that Sir. seems to regard death as the ordained end of all flesh (cf. xiv. 17, xli. 3 f., also xi. 14), but it does not follow that this is regarded as a natural or divinely willed state of affairs.

^{page 341 note 1} Op. cit. p. 40.

^{page 341 note 2} The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge, 1903), pp. 198Google Scholar f. Larsson, E., Christus als Vorbild: eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis XXIII, 1962), p. 145Google Scholar, argues that text attributes the Sündhaftigkeit of men to Eve, but even this goes further than the text warrants.

^{page 341 note 3} ‘On the Apocalypse of Moses’, J.Q.R. VII (1894–1895), 229.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 4} Op. cit. p. 40 n. 2.

^{page 341 note 5} SoTennant, op. cit. pp. 209 f., Vaillant, A., Le Livre des Secrets d'Hénoch (Paris, 1952), p. 107Google Scholar; Cohon, S. S., ‘Original Sin’, Hebrew Union College Annual XXI (1948), 288Google Scholar; Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 42, is more cautious.

^{page 341 note 6} Morfill, W. R., Charles, R. H., The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford, 1896), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 7} In Charles, R. H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament II (Oxford, 1913), 456.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 8} Op. cit. p. 107.

^{page 341 note 9} Cf. SI. Enoch xli, liii. 1A.

^{page 341 note 10} Cf. Tennant, op. cit. pp. 217–20.

^{page 341 note 11} As Rießler, P., Altjüdisches Schrifttum auβerhalb der Bibel ² (Heidelberg, 1966), p. 1332Google Scholar, remarks, this document shows affinities with the Book of the Cave of Treasures (cf. iii. 20).

^{page 341 note 12} This citation is a translation of that in Rießler, op. cit. p. 1088; he follows Renanxs's, E. rendering in Journal Asiatique, sér. V, II (1853)Google Scholar. However, Kmosko's, M. edition of this text in Graffin, R. (ed.), Patrologia Syriaca II (Paris, 1907)Google Scholar, shows that this verse is found only in one of the three recensions of this work; moreover he interprets the text differently (p. 1344) and translates it ‘per Hevam enim matrem tuam creata sunt peccata’. This seems slightly more probable, in view of the rarity of with the sense of ‘sinner’. Against this possible instance of a form of doctrine of hereditary sin in a document that owes much to Jewish apocalyptic traditions we must set the evidence of IV Ezra iii. 21: ‘cor enim malignum baiolans primus Adam transgressus et victus est’. Despite Box's (incorrect) translation of ‘baiolans’ as ‘clothing himself with’ (in Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha II, 563)Google Scholar, which would suggest that Adam did not originally have this evil heart, this verse implies that Adam had this heart from the first and before his trangression (cf. iv. 30, vii. 92, also Oesterley, W. O. E., II Esdras (London, 1933), p. xxvGoogle Scholar; Bogaert, P., Apocalypse de Baruch I (Sources Chrétiennes CXLIV, Paris, 1969), 404 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 1} So, e.g., Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 161, Bultmann, Theology I, 251.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Op. cit pp. 192 f. (cf. Condon, K., ‘The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin’, Irish Theological Quarterly XXXIV (1967), 33)Google Scholar: he cites Zech. v. 8; Is. xxiv. 20; Hos. xiii. 12. We may add to this the view of sin as a mysterious power found in the Qumran Hodayot (e.g. IQH v. 36 f., fr. 50. 5) and the way in which ύβρις is addressed in Sib. v. 228–46.

^{page 342 note 3} Grace reigns too (Rom. v. 21), obedience and righteousness have their slaves (vi. 17–19). The Law is a husband from whom we are freed by death (vii. 4) and a commandment can also be said to ‘come’ (vii. 9). Faith too ‘comes’ in Gal. iii. 23, 25.

^{page 342 note 4} Zandee, J., ‘Gnostic Ideas on the Fall and Salvation’, Numen XI (1964), 34–41Google Scholar, lists as the defects of man ignorance, deficiency, weakness, sleep, passion (πάθος); άμαρτια (Coptic nobe) is rarely used, for ‘sin is not a break, an act for which man is held responsible’ (p. 35).

^{page 342 note 5} Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (W.M.A.N.T. XXXVII, Neukirchen, 1970), e.g. pp. 11 fGoogle Scholar., 96–9, 134, 236 f.

^{page 342 note 6} Cod. Berol. 67. 7–18; cf. Schottroff, op. cit. p. 12. This is apparently very close to the view of 1QS iii. 18 ff., where all men possess more or less of the two spirits.

^{page 343 note 1} I.e. Nag-Hammâdi Cod I. 106. 18–108. 8, 119. 20, cited by Zandee, loc. cit. pp. 33 f., 48–52; Rom. v. 12 is there cited as saying that ‘because of the transgression of the first man has death become the lord and entered into association with all men’. The entry of sin into the world is omitted.

This would correspond to the Valetinian notion of the ψυχικόν as αύτεξούσιον (Iren. Haer. I. vi. 1 = ed. Harvey I i. 11).

^{page 343 note 2} Hipp. Ref. VI. xvii. 1; cf. Haenchen, E., ‘Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?’, Gott und Mensch (Tübingen, 1965), pp. 279 f.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 3} ‘Das Buch Baruchs: eine Beitrag zum Problem der christlichen Gnosis’, op. cit. p. 327. See also Epistula Apostolorum 39.

^{page 343 note 4} Cf. Böhlig, A., Labib, P., Koptisch-gnostische Apokalypsen aus Codex V von Nag-Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo (W. Z. Halle, Halle-Wittenberg, 1963), pp. 86 f.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 5} Cf. Cambier, loc. cit. especially pp. 221 f., 231.

^{page 343 note 6} Cf. Zandee, loc. cit. pp. 21–3, 34 f., also Ev. Mar. 7. 13–16. This leads Fuchs, E., Die Freiheit des Glaubens: Römer 5–8 ausgelegt (Beitr. Ev. Theol. XIV, München, 1949), pp. 18–20Google Scholar, to suggest that the mention of άμαρτια is a later insertion into an original gnostic substratum.

^{page 343 note 7} Pace Lohmeyer, E., ‘Probleme paulinischer Theologie: III. Sünde, Fleisch und Tod’, Z.N.W. XXIX (1930), 43–53Google Scholar, Adam's sin is not a timeless reality but a concrete, historical act of disobedience.

^{page 344 note 1} But Cf. Knox, W. L., St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 83, 98 f., 107Google Scholar, and also Lohmeyer, loc. cit. pp. 48–50. Here Paul is at one with contemporary Judaism; Cf. Bousset, W., Greßmann, H., Die Religion des Judentums ⁴ (H.N.T. XXI, Tübingen, 1966), pp. 404 f.Google Scholar; Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era I (Cambridge, 1927), 479.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} Gen. ii. 17, Deut. XXX. 17 f.

^{page 344 note 3} Rom. vi. 23; cf. vi. 9, viii. 6, 13.

^{page 344 note 4} The Book of Wisdom can speak both of death originating at the devil's instigation (ii. 23 f.) and of the righteous inviting death by their own actions (i. 12, 16, iii. 17–19). In Tg. Qoh. vii. 29 Eve and the serpent are made jointly responsible.

^{page 344 note 5} Apoc. Mos. xiv. 2; Vita Ad. xlix. 2. However, it would be misleading to place too much weight on Eve's attempts to draw the blame on to herself (e.g. Vita Ad. xviii. 1); that is accepted neither by Adam nor by God (Vita Ad. viii. 1 f., xxvi. 2; Apoc. Mos. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 2, xxxix. 1).

^{page 344 note 6} Wis. ii. 23 f.; cf. Vita Ad. xii. 1; Sl. Enoch xxxi. 3, 6; Pirqê de R. Eliezer xiii; Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews v (Philadelphia, 1925), 94 fGoogle Scholar. (the motif of the devil's envy).

^{page 344 note 7} Eth. Enoch lxxxi. 9; cf. Qoh. vii. 29; b. Sab. 55a-56b.

^{page 344 note 8} Cf. Vita Ad. xxvi. 2; Apoc. Mos. xi. 2, xxiv. 1; Slavonic Vita Ad. xxxii. 1; Philo, Quaest. in Gen. i. 47Google Scholar, also -Philo, Ps.Biblical Antiquities xiiiGoogle Scholar. 8; but cf. Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 40 n. 5.

^{page 345 note 1} Cf. Gen. ii. 3, xxx. 27, xxxix. 5; Deut. i. 37; I Kgs. xiv. 16; Jer. xv. 4 (also Sir. x. 8, xli. 7).

^{page 345 note 2} L. S. A. Well's reasons for bracketing the last phrase ‘lording it over all our race’ seem inadequate (in Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha II, 145)Google Scholar; the MS C in fact only omits κατακυριεύων παντός, i.c. reads ‘the death of all our race’; Cf. Tischendorf, C., Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866), p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 3} The interchange of the individual and collective aspects of the name is present in Gen. v. 1–3; cf., e.g., Dubarle, op. cit. pp. 67 f.; Barrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last: a Study in Pauline Theology (London, 1962), p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 4} Cf. also Vita Ad. xliv. 4.

^{page 345 note 5} Cf. also Syr. Bar. xxiii. 4, lvi. 10.

^{page 345 note 6} IV Ezra vi. 55, vii. 11 f., 21–4 (also implicitly in iv. 27–30); cf. Philo, Virt. 205.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 7} Jub. iii. 28 f. (perhaps also Jos. Ant. I. 41; Philo, Quaest. in Gen. I. 32Google Scholar, II. 9).

^{page 345 note 8} Gen. R. v. 9, xii. 6; Qoh. R. vii. 13; j. Kil. i. 7 (ed. Schwab II², p. 230); Pirqê de R. Eliezer xiv.

^{page 345 note 9} Gr. Bar. ix. 7.

^{page 345 note 10} Syr. Bar. xvii. 3 (cf. CD x. 8 f., if is to be taken as a proper name).

^{page 345 note 11} Syr. Bar. xvii. 2, 4 (cf. Qoh. R. vii. 13, also Deut. R. ix. 8; b. Sab 55b).

^{page 345 note 12} Cf. Syr. Bar. liv. 15, lvi. 6.

^{page 345 note 13} Ibid. liv. 15; cf. xlvi. 3. This would seem to be contradicted by xlviii. 42 f., but this is in its turn qualified by vv. 45–7.

^{page 345 note 14} This may be implied by Syr. Bar. iv. 2 f.; however it is also possible that it merely means that Adam was granted a vision of what would be his; cf. -Philo, Ps.Biblical Antiquities xiii. 8 f.Google Scholar, also xxvi. 6. Some such idea as Adam's previous immortality is called for by the statement that after his sin a ‘decree of death’ was passed on him and his descendants (xxiii. 4.; cf. xix. 8, -Philo, Ps.Biblical Antiquities xiii. 8Google Scholar; Gen. R. xvi. 6, xxi. 1; Sifre Deut. 323 (138b) cited by Scroggs, R., The Last Adam: a Study in Pauline Anthropology (Oxford, 1966), p. 36).Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 15} IV Ezra vii. 11 f.

^{page 346 note 1} Cf. Ibid. x. 9 f.

^{page 346 note 2} That seems to be the balance contained in IV Ezra vii. 116–19. The word ‘casus’ should be rendered ‘fate’, ‘lot’, and not ‘fall’; cf. iii. 10.

^{page 346 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 27–36, 54–8, 69; cf. Mundle, W., ‘Das religiöse Problem des IV. Esrabuches’, Z.A.W. VI (1929), 222–49.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 4} Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 36, concedes that there were circles in Judaism influenced by such fatalistic ideas as Ezra expresses. These may have been more widespread among the common people (Cf. Volz, P., Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen, 1934), pp. 87 f.)Google Scholar, but we should remember that these views were also given literary expression. Tennant argued (op. cit. pp. 221 f.) that, as Judaism already possessed a belief in the inherent sinfulness of the human heart, so a humbled Judaism formed a soil in which doctrines of a universal fallenness and ingrained sinfulness might spring up; Judaism could have arrived at a view like Paul's by a similar route. If anything Tennant's view has been confirmed by the appearance of the Qumran Hodayot with their stress on the pitiful weakness and wickedness of men in contrast to the sovereign grace of God towards his chosen community (cf., e.g., IQH i. 21–3, 32, iii. 21 f., iv. 29–38, xi. 10–12, xiii. 15–18).

^{page 346 note 5} IV Ezra, : a Study in the Development of Universalism (London, 1929), pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Volz, op. cit. pp. 112 f., Cohon, loc. cit. p. 289.

^{page 346 note 6} Cf. Test. Abr. xi–xii.

^{page 346 note 7} Op. cit. pp. 36–9.

^{page 347 note 1} Cf., e.g., Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha II, 474–6Google Scholar; however, cf. also the arguments of Bogaert, op. cit. e.g. pp. 80 f.

^{page 347 note 2} The depths of this μαΤαιóτης are plumbed when the curse falls on man who was to have ordered and upheld creation; but by God's grace he will yet do so (Rom. viii. 21).

^{page 347 note 3} Bultmann, Cf., Theology I, 246Google Scholar (but note p. 249 also); Schunack, G., Das hermeneutische Problem des Todes: im Horizont von Römer 5 untersucht (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie VII, Tübingen, 1967), p. 265Google Scholar; Gutwenger, E., ‘Die Erbsünde und das Konzil von Trient’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie LXXXIX (1967), 436.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 1} So Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1932), p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 2} Wis. i. 16-ii. 24, v. 13; Philo, Leg. All. I. 105–7Google Scholar; Det. Pot. Ins. 49; Rer. Div. Her. 290, Som. II. 66, Quaest. in Gen. i. 51, etc.

^{page 348 note 3} All according to some statements (e.g. IV Ezra iii. 8, 10); but there were exceptions (Ibid. II with ix. 7 f., xiv. 34 f.; Test. Abr. viii, xvii; Eth. Enoch lxx. 1 f., xc. 31; Syr. Bar. xxv. 1, xlviii. 30, lxxvi. 2 f., etc.).

^{page 348 note 4} Cf. Bultmann, R. in T.W.N.T. III (1938), 12. 14–17.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 1} Cf. Brandenburger, op. cit. pp. 168–80; Lengsfeld, op. cit. pp. 76–8.

^{page 349 note 2} Cf. St, H.Thackeray, J., The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London, 1900), pp. 37–40Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Man in the New Testament (London, 1963), p. 66Google Scholar; Michel, O., K.E.K. IV ¹² (Göttingen, 1963), 139Google Scholar; Whiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St Paul (Oxford, 1964), p. 49Google Scholar; but Cf. Conzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1969), p. 197.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 3} For a survey of the different interpretations of these words cf., e.g., Brandenburger, op. cit. pp. 169–76; Danker, F. W., ‘Romans v. 12: Sin under Law’, N.T.Z. XIV (1967–1968), 435–9Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5. 12’, S.J.T. XXII (1969), 330–40.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 4} ‘Le sens de έφ' ┬ώ en Rom. 5, 12 et l'exégèse des P`res Grecs’, Bib. XXXVI (1955), 436 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also his article ‘Le péché originel et l'exégèse de Rom., 5, 12–14’, Recherches de Science Religieuse XLIV (1956), 73 f.Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 1} Of the other uses of έφ' ┬ώ by Paul, two, Phil. iii. 12 and iv. 10, fit this interpretation quite well: in the former Paul's being grasped by Christ is the precondition for his purposive striving; Phil. iv. 10 is an example of a qualifying use without any sense of formal preconditions; it does, however, refer to a former state of affairs which explains both Paul's joy and the fact that their concern needed reviving. II Cor. v. 4 is a notoriously difficult verse, but it is no true paralled in that it is followed by a present tense. Here too ‘inasmuch as ’ would be as apt a translation as ‘since’. In Rom. vi. 21, έφ' οīς, the έπί picks up the prefix in έπαισχύνεσθε.

^{page 350 note 2} Here follows a series of laments (vii. 119–26) introduced by the words ‘quid enim nobis prodest …?’; Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 35, sees here evidence of a Sündenverhängnis, but the argument of this article is that this is a misunderstanding of the tension between determinism and responsible action inherent in this work. The righteous resist the evil cogitamentum of their hearts and receive their reward (vii. 92).

^{page 351 note 1} The distinction of the this-worldly death that comes on all as a legacy from Adam and the eternal fate that rests in the individual's own hands is clear here (cf. liv. 19).

^{page 351 note 2} Apoc. Abr. xxiii.

^{page 351 note 3} Particularly by those intcrpreting the verse in terms of ‘corporate personality’ (see p. 339 n. 4 above).

^{page 351 note 4} Cf.Lyonnet, in Recherches de Science Religieuse XLIV, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 5} Cf. Cambier, loc. cit. pp. 239 f.; the same is probably true of άμαρΤωλός in v. 19, but cf. Bultmann, ‘Adam and Christ’, p. 159: he takes the word as expressing a relation to God and not an ethical quality; this would be to divorce too much the relational and ethical in this word and in δίκαΙος.

^{page 351 note 6} Jüngel, loc. cit. p. 52, sees in Rom. v. 12 an aullusion to the wording of Rom. iii. 23; cf. Lengsfeld, op. cit. p. 76

^{page 351 note 7} see Weiß, B., K.E.K. IV⁶ (Göttingen, 1881), 261Google Scholar; Gutwenger, loc. cit. p. 438.

^{page 352 note 1} In v. 14 too άμαρτάνειν clearly refers to a concrete act of transgression. Jüngel, loc. cit. p. 52, argues that the charge of πάντες ἥμαρτον is implicitly brought by the Law as in Rom. iii. 23.

^{page 352 note 2} It is at this point that those interpretations of this verse based on ‘corporate personality’ border on the unethical and the incredible; they are unethical if they represent God as holding a man responsible for that in which he could have had no part, and they seem incredible in they seek to make this palatable by claiming it to be a feature of Semitic psychology; for a critique of this reconstruction of Hebrew ways of thinking cf. Porter, J. R., ‘The Legal Aspects of the Concept of “Corporate Personality” in the Old Testament’, V.T. xv (1965), 361–80Google Scholar; Rogerson, J. W., ‘The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: a Re-examination’, J.T.S. XXI (1970), 1–16.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 3} Cf. Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief (Regensburg, 1963), pp. 231 f.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 4} Cf. Jas. iii. 6, iv. 4, Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 161, Arndt, W. F., Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature⁴ (Chicago, 1952), p. 391Google Scholarb.

^{page 352 note 5} So Scroggs, op. cit. p. 79.

^{page 352 note 6} Cf. Lafont's, F. G. view on the aorists of v. 15 (‘Sur l'interpretation de Romains V, 15–21’, Recherches de Science Religieuse XLV (1957), 484).Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 7} So Paul uses the present tense in iii. 24, 26, 28; although this tense may imply no more than the anticipation of future acquittal (cf. the future in iii. 30), Paul uses the uses the aorist in v. 1 and contrasts the reconcilliation already achieved with the still salvation in v. 10.

^{page 353 note 1} In view of this eschatological perspective to Paul's thought here it is not enough to regare the future as merely logical; cf. Lengsfeld, op. cit. pp. 94–6.

^{page 353 note 2} The hortatory φορέσωμεν is better attested, but the context seems to favour the indicative: cf. the introductory και as opposed to the unambiguous ὤστε before v. 58, also Lengsfeld, op. cit. pp. 62 f.

^{page 353 note 3} Cf. Nygren, op. cit. p. 159.

^{page 353 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 229–31; cf. Cambier, loc. cit. p. 230.

^{page 353 note 5} But cf. Malina, B., ‘Some Observations on the Origin of Sin in Judaism and in Paul’, C.B.Q. XXXI (1969), 28.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 1} The Christian Doctrine of Man² (Edinburgh, 1913), p. 120.Google Scholar