Footnotes
Footnotes
I.See the disscusion in David W. J. Gill, "Erastus the Aedile,” TynB 40 (1989): 293-302.
2.Most introductions and commentaries agree on this approximate date. Minimizing the
historical value of Acts, Charles Buck and Greer Taylor date Romans in A.D. 47 (Saint Paul: A Study of the Development of His Thought [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969], pp. 170-71), Gerd LQdemann in 51/52 or 54/55 (Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], p. 263), while J. R. Richards puts it in 52-54 because he thinks on internal grounds that Romans must precede 1 Corinthians ("Romans and I Corinthians: Their Chronological Relationship and Comparative Dates,” NTS 13 [1966-67]: 14-30).
3.See the discussion in Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), pp. 72-157.
4. Ambrosiaster, PL 17, col. 46.
5.See, e.g., Philo’s Embassy to Gaius ; and note the discussions in Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960), pp. 4-9; and Wolfgang Wiefel, "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl Donfried (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1977), pp. 101-8.
6.See esp. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, SJLA 20 (Leiden: Brill,
1976), pp. 210-16; and F. F. Bruce, "The Romans Debate—Continued,” BJRL 64 (1982): 338-39. For a dissenting opinion, see Leon, Jews, pp. 23-27.
7.See esp. Wiefel, "Jewish Community,” pp. 109-13.
8.It is noted, e.g., that the word "church” is absent from Romans; see F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 385-89. The Christian community may then have reflected the lack of centralization that characterized the Jewish community in Rome; see Romano Penna, "Les Juifs a Rome au temps de l’apotre Paul,” NTS 28 (1982): 327-28; Leon, Jews, pp. 135-70.
9.This view was first made popular by F. C. Baur ("Ober Zweck und Veranlassung des Romerbriefes und die damit zusammenhangenden Verhaltnisse der romischen Gemeinde,” in Historisch-kritische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2 vols. [Stuttgart: Friedrich Fromman, 1963], 1:147-266). See also Zahn 1:421-34.
10.See Douglas J. Moo, Romans, vol. 1, WEC (Chicago: Moody, 1991), pp. 10-13, 44
46.
II.See esp. Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM,
1959), pp. 200-209; Walter Schmithals, Der Romerbrief als historisches Problem,
SNT 9 (Gotersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), pp. 9-89; JQlicher, pp. 112-15.
12.Schmithals, Romerbrief, pp. 69-82; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), pp. xlvii-xlviii.
13.Paul Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (London: SCM, 1971).
14.This is the conclusion of most introductions and commentaries; see, e.g., Kummel, pp. 309-11.
15.Schmithals posits a "Romans A” made up of Rom. 1-11 and 15:8-13 and a "Romans B” made up of 12:1-15:7; 15:14-32; 16:21-23 and 15:33, with various other minor interpolations and fragments (see his summary in Romerbrief, pp. 180-211). J. Kinoshita also discerns two separate original letters in our Romans; significantly, however, he divides things very differently than does Schmithals ("Romans—Two Writings Combined,” NovT 7 [1964]: 258-77). Another tack is taken by J. C. O’Neill, who identifies numerous editorial insertions in the text of Romans. (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PNTC [Baltimore: Penguin, 1975]).
16.See the review of O’Neill’s commentary by Nigel M. Watson, "Simplifying the Righteousness of God: A Critique of J. C. O’Neill’s Romans,’’ SJT 30 (1977): 464-69.
17.E.g., Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivingstons, 1919), pp. 350-66.
18.See, e.g., William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. xci; Harry Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 84.
19.J. B. Lightfoot, "The Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the Romans,” in Biblical Essays (London: MacMillan, 1893), pp. 287-320, 352-74; see also James Denney, "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in EGT 2:576-82.
20.See the criticisms of Lightfoot’s view by Hort in Biblical Essays, pp. 321-51.
21.Gamble, Textual History, pp. 115-24.
22.See, e.g., Kummel, p. 316; Guthrie, pp. 421-22; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. lxvi.
23.E.g., Edgar J. Goodspeed, "Phoebe’s Letter of Introduction,” HTR 44 (1951): 55-57; Schmithals, Romerbrief, pp. 125-51; Moffat, pp. 135-39; JQlicher, pp. 109-12. J. I. H. McDonald has shown that so compact a letter of introduction is possible ("Was Romans XVI a Separate Letter?” NTS 16 [1969-70]: 369-72).
24.This view is associated esp. with T. W. Manson; see his "Letter to the Romans—and Others,” BJRL 31 (1948): 224-40. Some who adopt a similar view include G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: British Academy, 1953), pp. 276-77; McNeile, pp. 154-58; and Martin 2:194-96.
25.Gamble, Textual History, p. 52. Ollrog, who thinks that Rom. 16 belongs to the original letter, argues that 16:17-20a is a post-Pauline interpolation ("Die Abfassungsverhaltnisse von Rom 16,” in Kirche, Fs. GQnther Bornkamm, ed. D. LQhrmann and G. Strecker [TQbingen: Mohr, 1980], pp. 221-44).
26.In addition to other works cited in these notes, see Bruce N. Kaye, "‘To the Romans and Others’ Revisited,” NovT 18 (1976): 37-77.
27.See, e.g., Lake, Earlier Epistles, pp. 343-46; Manson, "To the Romans and Others,” p. 8.
28.See Larry W. Hurtado, "The Doxology at the End of Romans,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, Fs. Bruce M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), pp. 185-99.
29.See the section Paul's Letters in chap. 7 above.
30.See esp. GQnther Bornkamm, "The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” in The Romans Debate, p. 28.
31.See Robert J. Karris, "Romans 14:1-15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate, pp. 75-99.
32.See Richard N. Longenecker, "On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p. 104; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 315.
33.Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, FRLANT 13 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910).
34.Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, Calif.: SP, 1981).
35.Klaus Haacker, "Exegetische Probleme des Romerbriefs,” NovT 20 (1978): 2-3.
36.Wilhelm Wuellner, "Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans,” in The Romans Debate, pp. 160-65.
37.Robert Jewett, "Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter,” Int 36 (1982): 5-20.
38.Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1986), pp. 113-14.
39.Martin Luther Stirewalt, Jr., "Appendix: The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay,” in The Romans Debate, pp. 175-206.
40. According to James Dunn, "The distinctiveness of the letter far outweighs the significance of its conformity with current literary or rhetorical custom” (Romans 1-8, p. lix).
41.E.g., Thorlief Boman, "Die dreifache WQrde des Volke-apostels,” ST 29 (1975): 6369; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 717.
42.For this approach, see particularly Bornkamm, "Last Will and Testament,” p. 29; Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, p. 199; Kummel, pp. 312-13 (with some modifications); Manson, "To the Romans—and Others,” p. 2; Kaye, "‘To the Romans and Others’ Revisited,” pp. 41-50.
43.Bernhard Weiss suggested that it was the significance of Rome as the "capital of the world” that led Paul to send this tractate there (1:300-307), but nothing in Paul suggests this attitude toward Rome.
44.See esp. Jacob Jervell, "The Letter to Jerusalem,” in The Romans Debate, pp. 6174; note also Nils Alstrup Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), p. 77.
45.Baur, "Zweck und Veranlassung des Romerbriefes,” pp. 153-60.
46.Some important exponents of this general approach are Marxsen, pp. 92-104; W. S. Campbell, "Why Did Paul Write Romans?” ExpTim 85 (1974): 264-69; Hans-Werner Bartsch, "The Historical Situation of Romans, with Notes by W. Gray,” Encounter: Creative Theological Scholarship 33 (1972): 329-38; Karl P. Donfried, "A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate, pp. 58-59.
47.Karris, "Occasion,” pp. 75-99.
48.Donfried, "False Presuppositions,” pp. 137-41.
49.Note the title of the recent monograph on the subject by A. J. M. Wedderburn: The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989).
50.For this general approach, see Wikenhauser, pp. 456-58; John Drane, "Why Did Paul Write Romans?” in Pauline Studies, Fs. F. F. Bruce, ed. D. A. Hagnar and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 212-23; A. J. M. Wedderburn, "The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again,” ExpTim 90 (1979): 137-41; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79), 2:814; Dunn, Romans 1-8, pp. lv-lviii.
51.JQlicher, pp. 115-18; Bruce, "Romans Debate,” pp. 334-35; Peter Stuhlmacher, "The Apostle Paul’s View of Righteousness,” in Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), pp. 76-77.
52.See James Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95-122.
53.E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
54.This can be seen most readily and in greatest detail in James Dunn’s commentary on Romans. See also Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judiasm ; idem, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Heikki Raisanen, Paul and the Law (TQbingen: Mohr, 1983); Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
55.See, e.g., G. B. Caird, "Review of Paul and Palestinian Judaism,” E. P. Sanders,
JTS 29 (1978): 539-40; D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: Knox, 1981), pp. 86-95.
56.See particularly R. H. Gundry, "Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul,” Bib 66 (1985): 1-38.
57.The suggestion of Richard Longenecker in his Paul, Apostle of Liberty (1964; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp. 65-85 that Judaism probably featured at least two tendencies—"acting legalism” and "reacting nomism”—has (despite Sanders’s criticism) much to be said for it.
58.See, in this regard, Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).
59.Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A. & C. Black, 1931), the first draft of which was finished in 1904. For this general approach, see also W. Wrede, Paul (London: Philip Green, 1907).
60.See particularly Stendahl, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): 199-215.
61.See esp. Ernst Kasemann, "‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), pp. 168-82, as well as ibid., Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
62.Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 434-42.
63.See, e.g., H. Boers, "The Problem of Jews and Gentiles in the Macro-Structure of Romans,” Neot 15 (1981): 1-11; Jervell, "Letter to Jerusalem,” p. 69; R. David Kaylor, Paul’s Covenant Community: Jew and Gentile in Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), pp. 18-19; Dunn, Romans 1-8, pp. lxii-lxiii ("the intergrating motif”).
64.Leon Morris, "The Theme of Romans,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 249-63.
65.John Paul Heil, Romans: Paul’s Letter of Hope, AnBib 112 (Rome: BIP, 1987).
66.J. Cambier, L’evangile de Dieu selon l’epUre aux Romains: Exeg&aage;se et theologie biblique, vol. 1: L’evangile de la justice et de la grace (Brussels: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967), p. 34.
67.For the theme "gospel” as central, see also Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, 3 vols., EKKNT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978-82), 1:91.
68.Denney, "Romans,” p. 570.
69.See Westerholm, Israel’s Law, p. 222