Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T16:52:30.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The pre-Pauline Formula in Rom. 3. 25–26a

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Ben F. Meyer
Ben F. Meyer
Affiliation:
Hamilton, Ontario
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study deals in turn with (a) the delimitation of the pre-Pauline element in Rom. 3. 24–26 as proposed first by Bultmann, then Käsemann, then Lohse; (b) considerations on how to construe the text and on how to delimit and understand its pre-Pauline element, concluding with a new proposal; and (c) the original context of the pre-Pauline element of the text.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 1983, pp. 198 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

NOTES

[1] Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951, 1955), vol. 1, p. 46.Google Scholar

[2] Käsemann, E., ‘Zum Verständnis von Römer 3,24–26’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 43 (1950/1951), pp. 150–4; repr.Google ScholarExegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2 1963), pp. 96–100Google Scholar. An die Römer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1974), pp. 86, 89–94.Google Scholar

[3] Lohse, E., Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu Christi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2 1963), pp. 149 f.Google Scholar

[4] Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; Freiburg-Basel-Vienna: Herder, 1977), p. 107, note 8.Google Scholar

[5] Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972, 21973), p. 87Google Scholar. Cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, , A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 245 f.Google Scholar

[6] Käsemann, , ‘Zum Verständnis …’, p. 150, takes this, too, to be a pre-Pauline text, but without sufficient warrant, as Wengst, Christologische Formeln, p. 87 note 4, rightly observes.Google Scholar

[7] An die Römer; for δι⋯ in this passage, p. 93; for the translation, p. 85: (Das geschah) ‘zum Erweis seiner Gerechtigkeit so, dass die in göttlicher Geduld früher geschehenen Sündenschulden erlassen wurden’. The translation is meant to offer a loose equivalent to δι⋯ in the prospective sense: ‘with a view to’. Schlier's translation takes the same tack (Römerbrief, p. 102).

[8] This holds for Paul's usage in general – see the remarkable (though not absolutely impeccable) treatment of Ropes, J. H., ‘“Righteousness” and “the Righteousness of God” in the Old Testament and in St. Paul’, Journal of Biblical Literature 22 (1903), pp. 211–27 - and it holds specifically for the use of δικαιoσ⋯νη Θεoţ in Rom. 3. 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cf. Lyonnet, Stanislas, ‘De “Justitia Dei” in Epistola ad Romanos 3, 25–26’, Verbum Domini 25 (1947), pp. 129–44; 193–203; 257–63Google Scholar; also ‘Notes sur l'exégèse de l'Epître aux Romains’, Biblica 38 (1957), pp. 35–61Google Scholar, cf. 44–49 on ‘La notion de justice de Dieu en Rom 3,25–26’. Again, ‘De notione “justitiae Dei” apud Paulum’, S., Verbum Domini 42 (1964), pp. 121–52Google Scholar. For a survey of opinion in Germany following Käsemann's 1961 essay ‘Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus’, see Manfred Brauch, ‘Perspectives on “God's righteousness” in recent German Discussion’ in Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 523–42.Google Scholar

[9] For a survey of views see Zeller, Dieter, ‘Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm 3, 24–26’, Theologie und Philosophie 43 (1968), pp. 51–75, pp. 54 fGoogle Scholar. For a more recent presentation of the evidence favouring ιλαστ⋯ριoν = ‘propitiatory’, see Stuhlmacher, Peter, ‘Zur neueren Exegese von Röm 3,23–26’, in Jesus und Paulus [W. G. Kümmel Festschrift[ (eds. Ellis, E. E. and Grässer, E.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 315–33.Google Scholar

[10] Stuhlmacher, ‘Zur neueren Exegese …’, pp. 325–8.

[11] The case for present remission in the sense of forgiveness: Kümmel, W. G., ‘π⋯ρεσις and ἔνδεξις. A Contribution to the Understanding of the Pauline Doctrine of Justification’, Journal of Theology and the Church 3 (1967), pp. 1–13 = Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952), pp. 154–67Google Scholar; repr. in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte (eds. Grässer, G., Merk, O., Fritz, A.; Marburg: Elwert, 1965), pp. 260–70Google Scholar. The case for present remission in the sense of ‘dismissal of charges’: Dahl, N. A., ‘Promise and Fulfillment’ in Studies in Paul. Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), pp. 121–36, p. 129Google Scholar. The case for past remission in the sense of ‘provisional pardon’: Lyonnet, ‘Notes sur l'exégèse …’ esp. pp. 56–61. The case for past remission in the sense of ‘postponement of action’: Schlier, Römerbrief, pp. 112 f.

[12] For the first option: Schlier, Römerbrief, pp. 113 f.; for the second, Zeller, ‘Sühne und Langmut’.

[13] Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Letter to the Romans’, The Jerome Biblical Commentary (eds.) Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., Murphy, R. E.; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968) vol. 2, pp. 291–331, p. 302.Google Scholar

[14] Wengst, Christologische Formeln, pp. 87–90, p. 88.

[15] On this stylistic trait and related traits relevant to Rom. 3. 25–26, see Percy, Ernst, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup, 1946, repr. 1964), pp. 21–5; 91 f.; 213Google Scholar. Earlier than Wengst, Zeller, ‘Sühne und Langmut’, pp. 60 f., proposed as a possibility the construing of Rom. 3. 25 f. as a series of coordinated prepositional phrases modifying the finite verb in the hymnic manner.

[16] Perhaps π⋯ρεσις here is altogether indistinguishable in meaning from άπεσις. But Dahl's view (see above, note 11), which sees in π⋯ρεσις a particular nuance making it here an approximate rather than an exact equivalent of άπεσις, cannot be excluded.

[17] Contrary to the views of Lyonnet and Schlier, respectively (see above, note 11).

[18] Contrary to Käsemann, ‘Zum Verständnis …’, p. 152; An die Römer, pp. 93–5; Zeller, ‘Sühne und Langmut’, pp. 70–2; and Wengst, Christologische Formeln, p. 89.

[19] See Percy, Die Probleme, p. 192, for further examples.

[20] See Hahn, Ferdinand, ‘Taufe und Rechtfertigung. Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Theologie in ihrer Vor- und Nachgeschichte’, in Rechtfertigung [E. Käsemann Festschrift] eds.Friedrich, J., Pöhlmann, W., Stuhlmacher, P. (Tübingen: Mohr; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), pp. 95–124.Google Scholar

[21] As in Bultmann (pre-Pauline sense: a divine demand for the expiation of former sins) Theology I, p. 46; Käsemann (pre-Pauline sense: fidelity to the covenant) An die Römer, p. 94; Conzelmann, (pre-Pauline sense: the quality by which God is himself righteous), An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (tr.Bowden, J.; London: SCM 1969), p. 219.Google Scholar

[22] Contrary to Conzelmann, Outline, p. 219.

[23] Contrary to Conzelmann, Outline, p. 31.