Romans. Craig S. Keener
Читать онлайн книгу.
Josephus Ant. 1.72. Ingratitude was among the most despised vices in Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.6; Mem. 2.2.2–3; Cicero Att. 8.4; Heraclitus Hom. Prob. 4.4; Seneca Ben. 1.10.4; Ep. 81.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 46, §128 B).
79. Useful for Paul’s audience, Greeks and Romans also believed that humanity had declined from a primeval golden age (Hesiod Op. 110–201; Ovid Metam. 1.89–312), but Paul’s biblical allusions and polemic against idolatry infuse his narrative with the Jewish subtext of Genesis (without claiming detailed allusions to Adam’s fall here, as some do). The glory and image are restored in Christ (Rom 8:29–30).
80. The term mataios (“vain,” “futile”) in 1:21 was sometimes associated with idols (e.g., Acts 14:15; 1 Kgs 16:26 lxx; Jer 8:19; 10:3, 15; Ezek 8:10; Wis 13:1; Sib. Or. 3.29, 547–48, 555), though the language here echoes Ps 94:11.
81. E.g., Wis 14:27; t. Bek. 3:12; Mek. Pisha 5.40–41; Sipre Deut. 43.4.1; 54.3.2. Later rabbis said it was the final stage to which the evil impulse would lead one.
82. E.g., Lucian Imag. 11; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.18–19; Let. Aris. 138; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.81, 128, 224.
83. “Beginning” included the entire primeval period, including the first people (e.g., Mark 10:6; L.A.B. 1:1).
84. This complementarity was especially sexual, designed for procreation (Gen 1:28).
85. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian Prom. 17; Deor. conc. 7; Philops. 2.
86. Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.232–49, 275; cf. later Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Tatian 33–34.
87. For discussions, see e.g., Dover 1978; Greenberg 1988. On Paul’s view, see contrary arguments in e.g., Scroggs 1983; Gagnon 2001.
88. The latter practice did exist, although it was sometimes stereotypically associated with misogyny.
89. Zeus, for example, seduced and raped not only women, but the boy Ganymede, whom he eventually took up to heaven (e.g., Homer Il. 20.232–35; Ovid Metam. 10.155–61); as the satirist Lucian wryly points out, his wife Hera apparently tolerated this boy on Olympus more than her earthly women rivals (Lucian Dial. d. 213–14 [8/5, Zeus and Hera]). Other deities also loved boys sexually (e.g., Apollodorus Library 1.3.3; Ovid Metam. 10.162–219); Josephus ridiculed such portrayals (Ag. Ap. 2.275).
90. The babies so abandoned could be eaten by vultures or dogs, but were often adopted and raised as slaves. Jews and Egyptians, however, rejected this practice of child abandonment.
91. On this point, Scroggs 1983: 29–43, is certainly correct.
92. Socrates was known for having spent much time with handsome young men enjoying their beauty without intercourse (although satirists like Lucian suggested that everyone really knew better; Lucian Ver. hist. 2.19; Vit. auct. 15).
93. Cf. e.g., Seneca Ep. 47.7; Dio Chrysostom Or. 77/78.36; Suetonius Dom. 7.1; Bradley 1987: 115; cf. Ps.-Lucian Am. 10.
94. See Höcker 2008: 59–60; Hartmann 2005: 469–70; cf. Aeschines Tim. 21, 51–53, 74, 137; Polybius 8.9.12; Dionysius Epid. 7.291; Lucian Alex. 5–6.
95. Still, it could be better than being accused of adultery with a free matron (Valerius Maximus 8.1. acquittals 12).
96. Philo Abraham 135–37; Spec. Laws 3.37–39; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.273–75; Ps.-Phoc. 190–92; T. Naph. 3:4–5; cf. the later recension of 2 En. 10:4. More generally, Lev 18:22; 20:13; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.199, 215; idem Ant. 3.275; Ps.-Phoc. 3; Sib. Or. 3.764; 4.34; 5.166, 387, 430.
97. On homosexual behavior as a Gentile sin, see e.g., Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3.185–86, 596–600; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 39:1. Later rabbis disclaimed even suspecting this behavior for Israelites (y. Qidd. 4:11, §6).
98. See Keener 2000d: 685.
99. Paul’s “unfitting” may reflect Stoic terminology, alluding to people acting against nature (1:26–27); but the particular examples of “unfitting things” here unfold in 1:29–31.
100. E.g., Ezek 18:6–8, 11–13; Philo Posterity 52; Sacrifices 32; Plato Laws 1.649D; Aristotle Eth. eud. 2.3.4, 1220b–21a; Cicero Pis. 27.66; idem Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22, 25; Seneca Dial. 9.2.10–12.
101. Lists could either use repeated conjunctions (e.g., “and . . . and”; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:21; Acts 15:20) or no conjunctions (asyndeton), as here (cf. Gal 5:19–23).
102. Even from the era of the “beginning” (1:20) they knew (cf. Gen 3:3) that human death was the consequence of humanity’s sin (Rom 5:12, 14, 17, 21; 6:16, 21, 23; 7:5, 13). This was even more true for knowers of the law (cf. 2:26; 8:4). Jewish teachers also believed that God had given commandments to humanity before the law (Jub. 7:20–21; Ps.-Phoc. passim; what the later rabbis called Noahide commandments, e.g., Mek. Bah. 5.90–94; Sipre Deut. 343.4.1).
103. Dikaiōma. God’s righteous character is thus also revealed in his wrath (1:18), though especially in the gospel where he puts people in the right (1:17); the tension is resolved especially in 3:26.
Romans 2
Made Right by Trusting Christ (1:18—5:11), cont.
God’s Impartial Judgment (2:1–16)
In this section (and some others, most obviously 3:1–9; 9:14–24) Paul employs a lively rhetorical style called diatribe, commonly used for teaching. This style typically includes an imaginary interlocutor, who may or may not be explicitly identified, who raises objections. These objections allow the speaker or writer to develop the argument, demolishing the objections one at a time while holding the audience’s attention.1 Scholars debate whether Paul begins addressing a specifically Jewish interlocutor here (2:3) or only at 2:17 (where it is explicit); most likely he implicitly addresses the Jewish interlocutor throughout the chapter, since what “we know” (2:2), what the interlocutor should know (2:4), and the continuity of subject matter (cf. 2:9–10,