From: Carlton L. Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Mon Jul 22 1996 - 14:19:36 EDT
akio itou wrote;
>Personally I have found R.B. Hays' interpretation of Rom 1:17 convincing.
>According to him, *EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN* means that 'out of Christ's
>faithfulness into human faith'. Moreover, he argues for the christological
>intepretation of Hab. 2:4b, i.e. Paul takes *HO DIKAIOS* as referring to
>Christ.This interpretation has a certain advantage since two *EK PISTEWS*
>in the same verse can be understood precisely in the same sense.
> In summary (if I understand him correctly), his interpretation of Rom.
>1:17 reads as:
>For the righteousness of God is being revealed in it out of Christ's
>faithfulness into humn faith, as it is written, 'But the righteous one,
>i.e. Christ will live out of his own faithfulness.'
>I am sure that this does not command unanimous consent, whichi simply
>proves its ambiguity or difficluty of the verse.
Edward Hobbs posted an informative note in February:
>>>>>>John Moe's extremely insightful (and apparently now inciteful!)
>>>>>>inquiry brought replies from two excellent scholars on our List. I
>>>>>>am impelled to reply as well, since this is an extremely important
>>>>>>text (and issue).
Habakkuk 2:4---
Hebrew: WTSDDYQ B'MUNTHO YHYH:
But-the-righteous by-his-faith(fulness) shall-live.
LXX: hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS MOU ZHSETAI.
But the righteous by my faith(fulness) shall-live.
Rom. 1:17--- hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
(Omitting Hebrew "HIS" and LXX "MY")
Paul drops the HIS (Hebrew) or MY (LXX) to universalize the statement
in Hab. 2:4. [The fact that W, the Freer MS. of the Minor Prophets, omits
MOU does not indicate that Paul's LXX lacked the word; it is almost
certainly a Christian scribe's correction, done VERY early--third century.]
Both Carl and Carlton have suggested ways Paul SHOULD have rewritten
this text if he thought it meant "The righteous through faith shall live."
But I would argue that he did not feel free to rewrite the text. Paul
does not rewrite his citations from the LXX to conform to his grammar.
E.g., he uses the future ZHSW, not the classical ZHSOMAI, except when
citing LXX, where he retains the future middle form (classical). See
Zerwick, Section 226. He almost certainly could read Hebrew, and I would
be incredulous if I were told that he didn't even bother to look in his
Bible(s) for one of the two most central texts in his thinking. Hence he
saw both "HIS" and "MY" as modifiers of "FAITH(FULNESS)", thus a legitimate
variable he could omit to universalize the text.
(And Carl, I would incline to think of this is the MOTTO for
Romans, not a "proof text.")
Now, how did Paul understand this text? (I won't refer you to my
piece on this published just forty years ago, since I can't find it here
myself.) Carlton put it correctly when he said that some commentators base
their interpretation (The one who is righteous through faith shall live) on
the structure of Romans. The modern commentator who fought hardest for
this was Anders Nygren; his _Romerbrevet_ argued the case at great length
and with substantial evidence. What question is Paul offering to answer in
Romans? Is it, "How shall the righteous live? -- Answer: They shall live
by faith." Or is it, "How can anyone find life, the goal of all human
striving? I.e., Who shall live? Answer: The righteous through faith shall
live."
Ch. 1-4 -- The righteous through faith
Ch. 5-8 (or 5-15) -- Shall live
And in each case, he argues first negatively (what righteous through faith
is not: it is not UNrighteousness, nor is it righteousness through
law/works) (what life is not: not being under the power of wrath, sin, law,
or death) then what it IS.
No point in repeating Nygren (my copies of the original Swedish and
the ET are in my office, not here in my cold basement, so I couldn't
anyway, could I?); you can all read him.
But he convinced me, long ago; and he convinced the RSV translators in
1946. Alas, the NRSV went back to Luther's interpretation, and consigned
Lutheran Bishop Nygren to the margin. But then they usually got Paul
wrong, I suspect.
A final point on word order: Carl said,
'By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom. 1:17 SHOULD be
construed with ZHSETAI . . . .'
But as Carl well knows, lots of things in Hellenistic writers,
including Paul, do not follow classical canons; and this example is
probably one of them. Whether Paul would have moved EK PISTEWS before
DIKAIOS if he felt free to re-write his Biblical text, I don't know; but
I'm somewhat doubtful. The issue isn't whether this text COULD mean "The
righteous shall live by faith," but whether it HAS to mean that. In my
opinion, it doesn't--it can quite plausibly be read "The righteous through
faith shall live," probably with the same ambiguity as that English
sentence.<<<<<<<
I agree that the sentence in Rom. is ambiguous. I agree with Edward that
Paul is most likely thinking of "made righteous by faith." That is a
dominating theme in the first half of Romans.
I would reject the notion that hO DIKAIOS could refer to Christ. That
seems out of keeping for both Hab and Rom, not that Paul would be
controlled by the meaning of the original Hebrew.
We should remember that the primary subject of this paragraph which extends
over two verses is TO EUAGGELION. It is the gospel that Paul has not lost
confidence in. It is by the gospel (EN AUTWi vs 17) that the DIKAIOSUNH
QEOU is being revealed. It is revealed from faith (the faithful proclaimer
- this is why Paul felt compelled to go to Spain) to faith (PANTI TWi
PISTEUONTI). This is in keeping with the basic reasons Paul was compelled
to write the letter in the first place.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
winbrow@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT