JBL 113/2 994) 265-285

ROMANS 1:17A CRUX INTERPRETUM FOR THE DEBATE

DOUGLAS A. CAMPBELL
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

An important debate that has been gathering momentum in Pauline circles 1 of late is the dispute. Since an opening round on the Continent 2 at the turn of the century, this has been a largely postwar phenomenon of 3 the English-speaking world, and lately a notably North American preoccupa 4 tion. Interest there has culminated recently in an exciting "head-to-head" debate between Richard Hays and James D. G. Dunn in the Pauline Theology Group of the Society of Biblical Literature in Kansas City in November 1991, which elicited definitive statements of both sides of the issue from those two
Good summaries of the debate, and bibliographies, may be found in Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 158-62; idem, " and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?" in SBL 1991 Seminar Papers (ed. David J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 714-29, esp. nn. 2-4, pp. 714-15; and George Howard, "Faith of Christ," ABD 2. 760; see also my The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21-26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 58-60. 2 Prompted by Johannes Hauleiter's study "Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der chrisdiche Glaube," NKZ 2 (1891) 109-45, 205-30; initially endorsed by Gerhard Kittel (" bei Paulus," TSK 79 [1906] 419-36) and G. A. Deissmann (Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History [1912; 2d ed. trans. W. E. Wilson; New York: Harper & Row, 195 161-65). A strong German counterattack effectively closed off the debate, however, to the point that Rudolf Bultmann scarcely mentions it in his article on - words in TDNT (6. 204 n. 230 Hays lists the opposition of W. H. P. Hatch, O. Schmitz, E. Wissman, and W. Mundle [Faith of Jesus Christ, p. 185 n. 88]). 3 A. G. Hebert and T. F. Torrance introduced the debate to English-speaking scholarship, prob ably via their exposure to Karl Barth, who was sympathetic to the view (see Hebert, "Faithfulness and Faith," Reformed Theological Review 14 [1955] 33-40, repr. in Theofogy 58 [1955] 373-79; and Torrance, "One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith," ExpTim 68 [195 111-14). This also excited a strong counterattack (see esp. C. F. D. Moule, "The Biblical Conception of Faith," ExpTim 68 [195 157; and James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language [London: Oxford University Press, 1961] 161-205), but one that failed to choke off discussion completely. 4 Hays notes the spate of recent North American discussion (see " and Pauline Christologyf nn. 2 and 3, pp. 714-15), prompted probably in large measure by his own monograph on the subject (Faith of Jesus Christ), and also by his continued advocacy of the view, which influences SBL discussions of Paul. Earlier North American proponents (like George Howard and Richard N. Longenecker) seem to have picked up the position from the Scottish advocates like the Torrances (for their most recent statements, see Howard, "Faith of Christ," ABD 2. 758-60; Longenecker, Galatians [Dallas: Word, 1990] 87-88).
1

265

266
5

Journal of Biblical Literature

protagonists, as well as a host of oral reflections and brief responses by interested members of the group. Thus, it is clearly an appropriate moment to ask (after the dust has settled a little) whether the debate has run its course or whether the course has only just begun. Actually I would suggest that, notwithstanding its significance to date, the debate is becoming increas ingly misdirected. Furthermore, only if certain important navigational errors are corrected will it continue to progress, ultimately to make a truly significant contribution to our understanding of Paul. As things stand, there is a danger that discussion is running into a cul-de-sac. The danger of irrelevance stems from two problems with the present discussion. On the one hand, the broader implications of the issue for Paul's understanding of - language, and for his basic understanding of salvation, have not been clearly articulated. These are, of course, fundamentally theo logical issueshence, perhaps, the reluctance of NT scholars to engage or even to acknowledge them. But they are undeniably present and mold the current debate powerfully.6 Only if these agendas are exposed and analyzed critically can the data of the debate be handled accurately. Moreover, it should then be possible to see how this localized debate concerning various genitive constructions has direct and massive implications for the whole shape of Pauline (and, indeed, NT) theology.7 On the other hand, the debate has rather incrediblyfailed to isolate the critical texts sufficiently and tends to merge discussion of a half dozen or so genitive constructions with quite sweeping characterizations of Paul's argument and theology, particularly as found in Galatians and Romans (and in which, for example, Abraham tends to figure quite prominently, although none of the disputed genitives actually refers to him).8 Given the difficulty of, and contentions surrounding, these letters, it is not surprising that such discussions fail to reach much resolution if a particular reading of Gal 2:15-4:10 must first be granted, then we will be waiting some time for a

5 See Hays, " and Pauline Chnstology", and James D G Dunn, "Once More, ," m SBL 1991 Seminar Papers (ed David J Lull, Atlanta Scholars Press, 1991) 730-44 6 These forces are plainly at work in Dunn's SBL paper (and response), for example, he states "on Hays' thesis we have no clear reference to the 'faith' of believers This is nothing short of astonishing It now appears that a text (Galatians), which has provided such a powerful charter of justifying faith' for Christian self-understanding, nowhere clearly speaks ofthat 'faith'" Dunn sounds positively Reformational here' ("Once More," 736) 7 For example, Hays states that " the emphasis in Paul's theology lies less on the question of how we should dispose ourselves towards God than on the question of how God has acted m Christ to effect our deliverance" (" and Pauline Chnstology," 715-16) 8 Hays simply states this "Our interpretative decision about the meaning of Paul's phrase, therefore, is inevitably going to be governed by larger judgments about the shape and logic of Paul's thought concerning faith, Christ, and salvation" (" and Pauline Chnstologyf 717) Dunn is at times similarly programmatic, e g , "Paul's problem was to demonstrate that non-Jews could be counted Abraham's children" ("Once More," 738)

Campbell: Romans 1:17

267

definitive pronouncement on Paul's embedded genitives! Such 9 discussions will only convince those who already believe. If these sweeping observations are in fact correct, then further substantive progress in this very important debate will be possible only as both its broader and its more specific contexts are isolated and addressed. I will attempt only the latter, more specific, task here, in the hope that it will be decisive for at 10 least the meaning of the various genitives in Romans: such 11 an objective is certainly sufficient for this short study. I will in fact argue that Rom 1:17 is the programmaticif usually unnoticedtext for this debate in Romans. In particular, I will suggest that this text clearly deploys the critical phrase as an intertextually motivated allusion to the faithful death of Christa deployment that includes, perhaps surprisingly, Hab 2:4. Needless to say, such a christological reading of Rom 1:17 has powerful implications for Paul's repeated use of this phraseand itselfin the famous arguments that follow. . Constructions in Romans Discussion of the contentious genitives in Romans has previously con centrated largely on 3:22 and 26, with a nod in the direction of 3:3-5, 25,

Another symptom of this configuration is probably the constant attempt by both sides to resolve the question on grammatical grounds, that will stand independently of any context. Although the discussion gets fairly torrid at times, Hays, M. Hooker, and I concur that both grammatical cases are invalid: see George Howard ("Notes and Observations on the 'Faith of Christ,'" HTR 60 [196 459-65; "Rom. 3.21-31 and the Inclusion of the Gentiles," HTR 63 [1970] 223-33; "The 'Faith of Christ;" ExpTim 85 [1974] 212-25; "Faith of Christ," ABD 2. 758-59) on behalf of the christological reading, arguing on grounds of the general incidence and construal of the con struction in the Greek of the period; and Arland J. Hultgren (The PISTIS CHRISTOU Formulation in Paul," NovT 22 [1980] 248-63) and various comments by Dunn ("Once More," 731-35, 744) on behalf of the traditional reading, arguing on grounds of the incidence of the article (see Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 164; idem, " and Pauline Christology," 716, esp. n. 8; Morna Hooker, " ," NTS 35 [1989] 321-22, esp. n. 2 [p. 321] and n. 1 [p. 322]; Campbell, "Appendix 2: The Objective Genitive Reading of ," in Rhetoric of Righteousness, 214-18; see also Luke T. Johnson, "Again Pistis Christou" CBQ 49 [198 431-47). 10 I have often been criticized when presenting this case orally for concentrating on one of the two critical letters, but reject these objections because (1) Romans is the more promising and decisive letter, as many acknowledge (e.g., Hays, " and Pauline Christology," 716, 717; see also the focus of Hauleiter's original inquiry [see n. 2]): in Romans Paul is clearly being more systematic, while in Galatians one has to take into account his previous teaching and that of his opponents, while the argument of the letter itself is notoriously convoluted (for the previous reasons?); and (2) Galatians has received the most attention lately in any case (see Hays, " and Pauline Christology," nn. 2 and 3, pp. 714-15). 11 I hope to complete studies on the various other aspects of the debate at some point, namely, its cultural backdrop and theological implications, while much has already been done. On Gala tians, Hays's work is exemplary (Faith of Jesus Christ). On cultural analogues, see Greer M. Taylor, "The Function of in Galatians," JBL 85 (1966) 58-76.

268

Journal of Biblical Literature

30-31, and 4.16.12 Thus, at first glance, we appear to be occupied with basically one chapter of Paul's discourse and with two phrases, with perhaps two to three more being affected in context. The traditional importance of 3:21-26 for Pauline theology increases the significance of these phrases slightly, but it is hard to escape the mathematical innocuousness of two to five instances. This configuration of the data, however, is incorrect. The disputed genitive phrase in 3:22 is constructed with the preposition Sta, while the sections disputed concluding phrase in v. 26 follows an incidence of ; a more unusual preposition in terms of the debate. Discussion has generally concentrated on the genitives, of which there are about five throughout Paul.13 is used again only in Gal 2:16 and 3:22.1 have argued elsewhere, however, that this unexplored parallelism between and phrases is crucial, recurring in numerous other contexts in Romans and Galatians without the attached substantive .14 For example, Rom 3:30 clearly deploys the two phrases in paralleland in some relation to , although it is unstated. When the rather extraordinary statistical profile of these occur rences is examined, it becomes clear that the dispute functions within the broader context of a set of antithetical phrases in Paul that con trasts (whatever that means) with (whatever that means), often in an allusive and "sloganizing" fashion. Moreover, the dominant phrase in the interlocked paradigms is clearly . Critical for the entire issue, however, is the observation that the occurrence of this phrase correlates perfectly with Paul's citation of Hab 2:4. Paul uses twenty-one times in his extant letters, but only in those two that also cite the scriptural text containing that exact phrase (in fact, a scriptural text trimmed by Paul to that exact phrase). This cannot be mere coincidence there is almost certainly some causal connection between these two phenomena, and the authoritative text's motivation of the other phrases seems the more likely. Consequently, it is to Hab 2:4 that we should turn if we wish to understand further PauPs flurry of / phrases, including his phrases, in Romans and Galatians. In Romans, our current concern, Paul cites this text early in the letter. It is of course his first scriptural citation, and it follows immediately on his
See Johnson, "Again Pistis Christou"; Dunn, "Once More," 740. The numbers vary depending on one's position on the authenticity of Ephesians, and also the textual variant in Gal 3:26 suggested by P 4 6 . The "undisputed" genitives, whether using or , are Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16 (2x), 20; 3:22, 26 (if accepted, which it usually is); and Phil 3:9. Eph 3:12 is often introduced, at which point the invariably overlooked 4:13 should also be considered, along with (perhaps) 3:17. Of course, the interpretation of many other instances of in the contexts of these genitive constructions is also affected by one's decision, e.g., Rom 3:25, 27, 28, 30 (2x), 31; Galatians chap. 3 passim; Phil 3:9; and perhaps Eph 2:8 and 4:4. 14 This study was originally part of a broader discussion, but it proved too long to publish in article form. Consequently, what is essentially the previous step in my case must basically be presupposed here: see my "The Meaning of and in Paul: A Linguistic and Structural Perspective," JBL 111 (1992) 91-103.
13 12

Campbell: Romans 1:17

269

first use of the phrase , which occurs in 1:17. This verse therefore gives us the luxury of two instances of our critical phrase, the second time actually in a scriptural text, within a carefully crafted section replete with contextual information that also functions programmatically for the rest of the 15 letter (or, at least, for chaps. 1-4). Thus, it seems that Rom 1:17 may well hold the key to our interconnected issues. If it can be proved that takes a certain meaning here, then it follows that the rest of these phrases in Romans, including the disputed genitives (whether using or ), will almost certainly conform to thisto argue otherwise would be to ignore the deliberate, programmatic function of 1:17. Consequently, 1:17 seems to be "the Thermopylae" of the debate in Romans the strategic pass through which all else must travel, to be held (or taken) with blood and tears.16 But before turning specifically to the exegesis of in Rom 1:17, we must first touch briefly on an important preliminary issue. II. The Meaning of in Rom 1:17 Verse 17a begins with a much-disputed phrase in Paul, .17 Fortunately, for our purposes it is not necessary to resolve fully the meaning of all the instances of this word group, or even of this phrase, in Paul. We say this because the implications of the immediate context of Rom 1:17 push the meaning of the phrase at this point in Paul in certain directions strongly.18 The

15 I do not endorse the architechtonic understanding of Hab 2:4 as a device structuring the theological argument in Romans (esp. chaps. 1-8), as suggested, e.g., by A. Feuillet ("La citation d'Habacuc 2:4 et les huit premiers chapitres de 1-Eptre aux Romains," NTS 6 [1959-60] 52-80) and A. Nygren (Commentary on Romans [trans. C. C. Rasmussen; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949] 85-87), although I do recognize its thematic importance. 16 Hence I was extremely puzzled when Hays, in his 1991 debate with Dunn, simply conceded to Dunn's alternative reading here: see his " and Pauline Christologyf 718, par. 1this is to allow one's flank to be turned well and truly! 17 Historically, scholars have pondered the precise meaning of , particularly when it is related to God, and they have tried to determine whether the genitive construction is subjective, objective, or some combination of the two (e.g., a genitive of origin). Surveys of the history of the debate can be found in P. Achtemeier, IDB 4. 99; . T. Brauch, "'God's Righteousness' in recent German Discussion," in E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 523-43; G. Klein, IDBSup, 754; and J. A. T. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 217-30. 18 In earlier commentaries, an objective genitive reading is almost universally favored, as W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam note (The Epistle to the Romans [2d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896] 24). No doubt this tendency is in large measure attributable to Luther's "great awakening" by this verse (see his Lectures on Romans [trans. W. Pauck; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961] 18the lectures were written by Luther in 1515). This reading finds a few modern supporters among the commentators, e.g., Black, C. E. B. Cranfield, O'Neill, and H. Schlier. A broad scholarly consensus may be emerging here, however, following a "Hebraic" genitive and a salvific reading of , as Dunn suggests (Romans 1-8 [Dallas: Word, 1988] 40-42), and E. Ksemann laments (Commentary on Romans [trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 24, 27).

270

Journal of Biblical Literature

clear reference in the previous verse, within a parallel construction, to the gospel of salvation, suggests that must be carrying at least a conno tation of salvation for Paul at this point. 19 The link with the gospel also suggests that this salvation is at least in part eschatological, since it is clear that Paul does not expect a further salvation from God beyond Christ, and God's salva tion is by definition an eschatological event.20 Moreover, the loading of the 21 context with subjective genitives suggests that the genitive relationship must also be subjective here, although, as Ernst Kasemann has noted in a famous study, the concept is not for this reason static: is best understood in a "Hebraic" (or, better, "non-Western") sense that rather transcends subjectobject distinctions.22 It seems more like a dynamic power flowing from God to the world just as, once again, the context suggests with its use of and, later on, . In sum, in v. 17a is best understood as a reference to an eschatological saving power, both of and from God. Further specifica tion of the phrase beyond this is not necessary for our present purposes. III. Two Apocalyptic Models in Rom 1:17a To focus now directly on our question: as is well known, the section is not without its difficulties, but it does present us with a great deal of impor tant contextual information: [1:16a] [16b] pL7a] [17b] , , ' , , .

It is here that traditional interpretation has tended to overlook the obvious. Despairing of interpreting the series in v. 17a, it has gen erally given this clause a paraphrastic rendering and then concentrated on
See also Rom 3 21-26 and 9 30-1010, clearly salvific discussions, in which features So particularly Kasemann "The operation of God's power corresponds to its eschatological nature" (Commentary, 22, see also 24-26) 21 . . . m 116, and in 18 Note, the first occurrence of after 117, m 3 5, is also within a subjective construction, see Otto Glombitza, "Von der Scham des Glaubigen Erwgungen zu Rom 114-17," NovT 4 (1960) 79 22 Kasemann, "The Righteousness of God in Paul," m New Testament Questions of Today (trans W J Montague, London SCM, 1969 [1965]) 168-93, see also his Commentary, 23-30 As Dunn concludes " is it an attitude of God or something he does? Seen as God's meeting of the claims of his covenant relationship, the answer is not a strict either-or, but both-and, with the emphasis on the latter" (Romans 1-8, 41)
20 19

Campbell: Romans 1:17

271

the complete scriptural citation that appears in v. 17b. But this quotation is capable of various readings, and one wonders if the most important contextual and theological clues to its use have already been passed by.23 At this point, however, as we try to press further into the meaning of 1:17a, we encounter an important, if usually unnoticed, interpretative decision. The meaning of v. 17a alters fundamentally depending on the meaning accorded to the verb and, in close relation to this first interpretative deci sion, the function accorded to the prepositional phrase . Commen tators tend to overlook or, if they do note the alternative, to misunderstand and obscure the ambiguities that lie here, no doubt impelled by the stature of the traditional reading, supported by well-worn renditions of the verse in the vernacular.24 It is critical, however, to free the interpretative process from this weight of tradition and to address the semantic possibilities suggested by the Greek. Fundamentally, there are two possible readings of Rom 1:17a, that we may characterize broadly as the traditional anthropocentric reading, and the cosmic eschatological reading. We will address these in turn. The Traditional Anthropocentric Reading For this interpretation, the act of revelation or disclosure denoted by is assumed to be one directed to the generic individual. Paul is held to be saying that the saving righteousness of God, which is already present within the gospel, is being revealed to individuals as they grasp it by faith (and such a reading comes very naturally to a good Protestant!). We might translate this as, "The saving power of God within the gospel is being revealed
The series in v. 17a is usually rendered by something like "by faith from first to last." Most such alternatives, however, paraphrase the disputed expressions, often using the prepositions in a sense that loyalty to their normal meaning will not permit. For example, means "from the faith of the preachers to the faith of hearers" or "from the faith of the OT to the faith of the NTT Such readings, however, tend to loosen the prepositional series from its gram matical moorings and to interpret it within a theological framework: see C. . B. Cranfield's very full discussion of the phrase (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979] 1. 99). Specialized studies on the question are surprisingly rare: I know only of Anton Fridrichsen, "Aus Glauben zu Glauben, Rom 1:17," ConNT 12 (1948) 54; and Glombitza, "Von der Scham des Glubigen," 74-80, esp. 78-80a rather Bultmannian reading!but neither of these studies notes the implications of ambiguity that will concern us subsequently. J. Hugh Michael resolves the problem in a novel fashion by excising the first instance of as a vertical dittographical error ("A Phenomenon in the Text of Romans," JTS 39 [1938] 151), but such a solution both misses Paul's point and removes all hope of finding it. 24 E.g., Kasemann: faith is definitely a "personal responsibility" but at the same time "God's self-manifestation is decisive for all history" (Commentary, 23)! How are these two things related, since Paul speaks of them in one breath? Characteristically, even if the commentators grasp the eschatological dimension of Paul's statement, they miss its important implications. Note, however, those who read in v. 17a in terms of God's faithfulness are not vulnerable to this criticism.
23

272

Journal of Biblical Literature

by means of faith." Of crucial importance for our purposes is the grammatical observation that within this reading functions adjectivallyand hence not very significantlyas it modifies : "the saving righteousness of Godwhich is within the gospelis being revealed . . . ." It is also impor tant to note that here the righteousness of God is already assumed to be within the gospel. That identification, according to this reading, is not something that actually requires disclosure: what requires disclosure is the gospel's oifer of salvation to individuals, where faith is the critical mediator. As a result of this, an act of apprehension is central to the reading (albeit an important one!), and it has, as a result, a distinctly anthropocentric (and even Cartesian) cast. The Cosmic Eschatological Reading This reading, however, does not take the presence of God's saving righ teousness within the gospel for granted. It suggests that the revelation of God s eschatological saving righteousness within and by the gospel is actually Paul's main point. Here God's eschatological saving righteousness functions dynam ically, like the OT "Word of God," breaking into a chaotic or rebellious order from above but, crucially for Paul, here definitively within the Christ-event. The primary relationship presupposed by this reading is therefore that between God and the gospel in the context of the cosmos, not that between the gospel and the individual (or nation). Moreover, the revelation being spoken of is the disclosure of the previously unseen righteousness of God to the world within the gospel (unseen presumably because it is in the eschatological future), not the disclosure of salvation from the gospel to the individual (although these points are theologically related in that the first disclosure is the presuppo sition of the second): hence our characterization of the reading as cosmic and eschatological. Within this reading the functions of both the verb and the short prepositional phrase are rather different from that of the previous reading. The prepositional phrase functions here as the agent or instrument of the verb , and hence denotes a different disclosure altogether. Consequently, within this reading the prepositional phrase is extremely significant and quite central to Paul's meaning: it bears the brunt of the verb "God's eschatological salvation is being revealed in it, that is, in the gospel"; and Paul's basic point is, as we have said, that the eschaton is being realized in the content of the gospel. Why is a clear distinction between these two readings so important for our interpretation of , the phrase that immediately follows these words in v. 17a? Because a traditional reading of this phrase in terms of anthropocentric faith in v. 17a (and hence also in v. 17b) is possible only if the first reading is the correct one, that is, if the traditional anthropocentric reading of v. 17a is adopted. If the second reading is adopted then an inter-

Campbell: Romans 1:17

273

pretation of in terms of anthropocentric faith is utterly impossible. Why does a cosmic eschatological reading of v. 17a exclude an interpreta tion of in terms of anthropocentric faith? If Paul is saying in Rom 1:17a that "the eschatological, saving righteousness of God is being revealed within the gospel," then clearly this event is accomplished independently of the individual's faith. To make the eschatological disclosure of God's saving power conditional upon the believer's faith would be to press the role of anthro pocentric faith rather too fareven as some would define it within Paul's theology, and particularly as it seems to be defined by Paul within Romans. In short, it would be to make the coming of the eschaton dependent on individual faith, and this is theologically (and practically [!])ludicrous. For Paul this revelation is clearly grounded in God's grace and sovereignty and love (so especially Rom 5:8-9; 8:28-39). But the phrase must be read in some relation to this previous cluster of ideasafter all, it is in the same sentence! 25 So at this point it must be concluded that if a traditional anthropocentric construal of Rom 1:17 is not in fact suitable, then must refer to something else altogether, like the faithfulness of God or of Christ. Rather significant interpretative con sequences for and for Romans flow from this decision. Thus, clearly a great deal turns on the comparative suitability of these two possible readings of Rom 1:17a. In evaluating their comparative merits, as we have seen, it is absolutely critical to assess the function of the prepositional phrase and the reference of the verb. There are suggestions both from the immediate context and from Paul's wider linguistic usage about how we should in fact read these two semantic units, and these must now be carefully assessed. IV. Clues from the Immediate Context Paul has consistently emphasized the gospel throughout the letter open ing of Romans, to the extent that he breaks into the standardized opening formulas of the Greco-Roman letter (in his christianized version) with a care fully crafted statement concerning the gospel's content. Whatever this text's origin,26 it clearly signals Paul's focus on the substance of the gospel: the gospel of God that Paul preaches "concerns his Son. . . ." Paul feels constrained to make this clear before he has even designated the recipients of the letter or greeted them! This concern is reiterated in v. 9 within a parenthetical but suggestive comment: "God is my witnesswhom I serve in my spirit in the
Nygren (On Romans, 80) and Ksemann, for example, both really ignore the sentence's actual grammar: "logically, then, it [the phrase] is related only loosely to the preceding statement" (Commentary, 31). Koine prepositions were extremely fluid but not grammatically disembodied. 26 Many argue that this is an early church creed or confession: for discussion and bibliography, see Dunn, Romans 1-8, 5-6, 22-24.
25

274

Journal of Biblical Literature

gospel of his Son. . . ."27 The suggestion is that Paul's preoccupation with the gospel and its christological content has not subsided during the proem, where he is primarily seeking to establish a good relationship with the Roman Chris tians who will be listening to his letter. But perhaps most importantly, the theme of the substance of the gospel is placed centrally in the immediate context of v. 17a by v. 16. Both parts of v. 16 contribute to this emphasis. Verse 16a states: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel," thereby establishing Paul's focus on the gospel clearly. Both v. 16b and v. 17a are then grammatically dependent and symmetrically structured developments of this statement. In v. 16b Paul states . . . , and v.l7a follows this construction closely: . In both of these verses genitive constructions combine with some quality, link this to v. 16a with the conjunction , and complete their statement with purposive constructions using . Moreover, v. 16b also (as we would expect from 16a) clearly states what the gospel is and then directs this content teleologically toward the salvation of the believer. The import of the verb could hardly be clearer: thus v. 16b continues to speak of what the gospel "is." We would therefore also expect the stylistically and grammati cally parallel construction in v. 17a to follow this emphasis on the substance of the gospel. This in turn suggests stressing the reading that most success fully achieves this, that is, the cosmic eschatological reading, which speaks of the righteousness of God being in the gospel. In sum, the context of 1:17 quite strongly suggests reading the prepositional phrase in relation to the verb, not the noun phrase: "the righteousness of God is being revealed in it (that is, in the gospel)'.' Conversely, a traditional, anthropocentric reading shifts the focus of Paul's discussion at this point from the gospel itself and its content to how the gospel is appropriated. These are not the same thing, particularly as Paul has just defined them in the letter opening and proembut what justification does the context supply for such a move away from, and then immediately back to (cf. v. 18), a cosmic horizon? It seems undeniably more correct to continue to emphasize the cosmic and eschatological dimension throughout this text (as long as it is grammatically possible to do so). In my view, these accumulating contextual indicators suggest the following critical interpretive decision: should be interpreted in v. 17a in the way that emphasizes the content of the gospel most strongly, and this sug gests an instrumental function in relation to the verb within a cosmic eschato logical reading. 28 But we should also consider the verb in more
27

Significantly, faithfulness overlaps semantically with the Hebraic understanding of sonship (see E. Schweizer and E. Lohse, "," TDNT 8. 343, 349-53, 357-62), and Paul-unusually uses "son" seven times in Romans with reference to Jesus. 28 The only semantic alternative open to the anthropocentric reading at this point is to claim that some notion of appropriation is introduced into the discussion after as an

Campbell: Romans 1:17

275

detail before making a final decision on the reading of the phrase. If Paul uses this word elsewhere in a fairly consistent manner (and there is no guarantee that he will), then it might be possible to extrapolate a probable contextual connotation from it. V. Indications from Paul's Customary Use of the Verb The verb appears nine times in the undisputed Pauline letters (Rom 1:1, 18; 8:19; 1 Cor 2:10; 3:13; 14:30; Gal 1:16; 3:23; Phil 3:15) and also in Eph 3:5 and 2 Thess 2:3, 6, and 8, with the result that exactly one half of the verb's twenty-six NT occurrences are Pauline. Paul's usage is not, as we would expect, completely uniform,29 but a basic trajectory is apparent. The word usually denotes dramatic, revelational events, such as Paul's own encounter with the gospel, that are always unconditional and are almost invariably eschatological.30 Here Gal 1:15-16 seems particularly significant. Although these verses are from a different letter (and one possibly written rather earlier than Romans31), the theological content and theme are extremely close to Rom L16-17:32 . . . . . . , 3 3 The critical point here is that this revelation of the gospel is unconditioned, as Paul's preceding argument makes quite clear. The event is grounded in God's choice to set apart Paul from his mother's womb, and hence in God's grace (cf. v. 15). Also significant is Paul's failure to mention "faith" at all. If Paul uses the verb here with reference to the breaking of the gospel into his own life and, further more, does not mention his own , how much more should we expect the eschatological dawn of the gospel in the world, as described by Rom 1:16-17, to be unconstrained and unconditioned!? 34 Two of the instances in 1 Corinunstated presupposition. Such an introduction is certainly theologically possible for Paul, given his later discussion, but the semantic shift is a noticeable one that should probably have been indicated linguistically by the use of a participle, for example, , which functions analogously in 1:20. 29 The verb sometimes describes charismatic and "occasional" revelations (e.g., 1 Cor 14:30) although the seriousness with which Paul treated these revelations should not be underestimated: in Phil 3:15 such an event is supposed to confirm the heart of the gospel. 30 Excepting Rom 1:18, but see our discussion below. 31 If one follows the early, South Galatian provenance the letter is written ca. 49 CE, with Romans ca. 57 CE (for a definitive statement of this position, see Longenecker, Galatians, lxi-c). Others place the letters much closer together in Paul's letter sequence, and often in the same year. 32 Perhaps the importance of this event for Paul minimizes the problem of distortion creeping into his account over time, in any case. 33 This statement is corroborated by 3:23: . The frequent use here of makes an appeal to this text on this question impossible. But it is interesting to note that where functions in chap. 1, functions in 3:23 (see n. 27): see also 1 Cor 15:8 and context. 34 Eph 3:5, in the context of w. 2-12, creates a picture identical to this one, except that the implications are perhaps even stronger.

276

Journal of Biblical Literature

thians (2:10 and 3:13) also especially confirm this pattern found in Galatians, both being strongly eschatological and unconditioned. 35 The two occurrences of the verb in Romans outside 1:17 reinforce this impression. To take them in reverse order, Rom 8:19, although it does not refer to cosmic and salvific events in the past, does refer to those eschatological events still to come. Thus, it reinforces the usual eschatological connotation of the verb.36 In Rom 1:18 Paul is clearly playing on his previous use of the verb, so he employs it in this subsequent verse even though the scenario is not fundamentally eschatologicalbut it is certainly cosmic in scope.37 Thus it would seem that there is, broadly speaking, a consistent picture in the Hauptbriefe. Paul tends to use the verb (and related words) to describe cosmic eschatological disclosures and, in particular, the primary eschatological disclosure that is the gospel. These revelations are usually dramatically powerful and unconditioned as, for example, in Gal 1:15-16, where one bursts upon the zealous but unsuspecting Paul. Such disclosures seem to be driven solely by the purposes and power of God, and this seems quite appropriate for Rom 1:17 as well. Ksemann summarizes the implications of such a picture in relation to this verse with customary force: The gospel is . .. the epiphany of God's eschatological power pure and simple.. .. God's self-manifestation is decisive for all history . .. [and t]he apostle's theology involves a definite salvation-historical perspective. The interpreter who radically denies this is forced to reduce the Lord of history to the creator of the particular moment and hence to do violence to the Pauline doctrine of God [emphasis added].38 Given the presence of this scenario behind Rom 1:17, it remains only to draw the proper consequences from it for our reading of con sequences that commentators seem so often to have overlooked. It seems clear that cannot be translated here in terms of anthropocentric faith,
Our difficulties finding an anthropologically conditioned use of in Paul within this eschatological sphere are not relieved when the rest of the NT and indeed the OT and the literature of Second Temple Judaism is scanned. The word group and the concept seem to be too dominated by the sovereignty of God. A. Oepke's dated but still useful analysis discerns an "eschatological" use in the OT (e.g Isa 56:1) and states concerning Paul: "Revelation . . . is a divine act, the unveiling of what is hidden [and]... its true locus is eschatology" (TDNT3. 563-93, esp. 577, 583-84). These observations certainly corroborate our conclusions. 36 has a similar meaning in Romans: cf. 8:19 (and 16:25). Here a relationship with the - word group is also apparent (cf. 1:17 and 3:21; cf. also the probably non-Pauline 16:25 and 26). does not exhibit as strong an eschatological connotation as , but an added semantic emphasis seems to be that the revelation is clear. Note that it is clear not because of human but because God has made it clear (cf. esp. 1:19). 37 Although humans deserve the wrath of God, they do not in any sense condition or control that disclosure, as the solemn threefold reiteration of suggests (w. 24, 26, 28). 38 Of course, he is a well-known advocate of eschatology (properly defined), but our survey of the evidence suggests that his comments on this text are accurate (Commentary, 23; see also Glombitza, "Von der Scham des Glubigen," 78-79).
35

Campbell: Romans 1:17

277

since the theological consequences verge on the absurd.39 But the phrase still has two appropriate and hence possible referents, namely, the faithfulness of God (i.e., God "the Father"), and the faithfulness of Christ (it seems to me rather less likely that it refers to some combination of meanings). These alter natives must be carefully weighed before Rom 1:17 will yield up its mysteries fully. VI. A Reference to God, or to Christ? An important exegetical alternative to the traditional anthropocentric reading of Rom 1:17 (but one that can ultimately save the theme elsewhere!) is an interpretation of in v. 17a in terms of the faithfulness of God. This is a much more contextually sensitive reading, and it integrates well with the cosmic and eschatological dimension that we have emphasized is present within Paul's discussion at this point. Hence, drawing this distinction here unfortunately cannot help us by arbitrating between a theocentric and a chris tological interpretation: both are equally eschatological and cosmic in their force. Dunn is probably the best-known and most powerful recent exponent of the theocentric position, although it has had important earlier advocates, like Karl Barth.40 Dunn argues quite correctly that a theocentric reference for in v. 17a makes good sense in context: "the savingrighteousnessof God is being revealed in the gospel, (that salvation springing) out of (his) faithfulness. . . This is sound Jewish theology, and it receives additional support from various other contextual considerations. In Rom 3:3 Paul clearly speaks of the faith fulness of God, and this, as Dunn points out, is the first occurrence of in Romans after 1:17. Moreover, the reading correlates v. 17a with v. 18 precisely in that both now refer to cosmic acts springing from God and proceeding to the earth. It also draws the phrase into alignment with an eschatological reading of the immediately preceding . Thus, the eschatological and cosmic suitability of the interpretation is plainly apparent. One can also cite the identical prepositional progression in 2 Cor 2:16 in support of a more generalized, rhetorical interpretation of the critical phrases.41
39 We may note here, however, that undoubtedly refers to the faith of the Christian. In v. 16b the purposive of v. 5 reappears: . These earlier references to the faith of the believer are clearly being recapitulated by in v. 17a; thus it cannot be doubted that Paul considers the of the Christian (note: in some relation to ) to be important. 40 See Dunn, Romans 1-8,44,48; Dunn cites Karl Barth, G. Hebert, T. W. Manson, and Lloyd Gaston in support; see also Wilber . Wallis, "The Translation of Romans 1:17A Basic Motif in Paulinism,"/ErS 16 (1973) 17-23; and Torrance, "One Aspect," 113. Note that is best read with the verb on this reading. 41 Dunn himself notes point (1) here, adds six more (!), but overlooks point (2) (Romans 1-8, 44). He argues that such a reading is good rhetorical style; as source follows a verb of revelation

278

Journal of Biblical Literature

These are strong supports for the reading, and it is in many ways a pro foundly attractive one. Certainly it is decisively superior to the traditional anthropocentric reading. However, it also suffers from a series of disadvantages that, in my opinion, ultimately completely undermine its cogency. The Achilles' heel of the reading is the systematic equation that exists in Romans (and Gala tians) between the phrase and the text of Hab 2:4. Unfortunately, this is not a relationship that we have had time to establish fully within the bounds of this short study. As has already been briefly stated in section one, however, I have argued elsewhere that Hab 2:4 and the phrase are closely related: indeed, this text seems to be the template for Paul's frequent deployment of the isolated phrase, so that the two must really, if it is at all possible, be interpreted in parallel. They are intimately related linguistic units in Paul. This close relationship between the phrase and the scriptural text, however, forces theocentric interpreters like Dunn onto the horns of an un enviable dilemma. Theocentric exponents, initially, can only really deny that there are any firm connections here and argue that does not mean the same thing wherever it is deployed in Paul and that the instance in v. 17a does not have any close relation to the intertext from the prophets quoted in v. 17b. This allows the phrase in v. 17a to refer to the faithfulness of God, while the text in v. 17b can still function as an authoritative scriptural legitimation of the individual's saving faith in the gospel and the phrase con sequently functions rather malleably, taking two quite different senses in the same verse. No one would deny that language and Paul's use of it!is flexible, but this reading takes linguistic plasticity too far. It runs squarely into two obser vations in particular that suggest that a relationship does exist between these two semantic units and that they should be interpreted in parallel: (1) If the phrase in v. 17a and the text in v. 17b are interpreted diversely, the verse is actually fractured into separate and unrelated statements. Not only is this puzzling in its own right, but it cuts across the apparent function of Hab 2:4, which is to support scripturally what has just been said. Why would

"naturally"; . . . etc is "somewhat odd" if both refer to human faith (an argument from redundancy?); Hab 2:4 is probably intended by Paul to be understood ambiguously; faithfulness is a theme in Romans; and the righteousness of God is synonymous with his covenant faithfulness. Regarding these arguments, the first seems indecisive a christological reading would be equally good rhetorical style; the second is also indecisive, because it fails to establish that always takes and hence must take such a meaning; the third applies only to the traditional reading and hence is irrelevant to our christological interpretation; the fourth contention seems quite specula tiveWhere does Paul tell us that "scripture is ambiguous"?! And the last two considerations, although true, are also indecisive: as merely possible readings, they similarly fail to establish a particular meaning herewhile the evident redundancy generated by Dunn's last observation clearly harms his own case! In sum, although initially impressive, Dunn's case is not particularly powerful.

Campbell: Romans 1:17

279

Paul cite a supporting text that does not in fact support anything but makes a different statementand that with an identical phrase? Such a procedure is simply incoherent. (2) The perfectly correlated distribution of the phrase and the text throughout Paul's letters as a whole, to which we have alluded, also suggests such a close relationship. Fundamentally, it seems better to accept that this remarkable distribution says something about a relationship between the two phenomena rather than to attribute it to mere chance. Paul only uses when he has cited Hab 2:4 at some point (and here in Romans, notably after his first use of the phrase!), and yet when he has done so it is aand perhaps theleading motif in his arguments. Clearly, to my mind, a close relationship exists here. The theocentric interpreter's only alternative at this point is to bow to the (really undeniable) presence of a parallelism, but to continue to read in v. 17a as a reference to the faithfulness of God and to follow this through consistently for Hab 2:4 in v. 17b, reading this text as a reference to the faithfulness of God as well. To my knowledge, no one has ever actually argued this reading of Hab 2:4, for reasons that should nevertheless be made explicit: (1) Although understandable, in Romans such a deployment seems un necessary and even puzzling: Why would Paul so emphasize the faithfulness of God? As his diatribe in 3:1-9 demonstrates, although this idea is important to him, it is clearly shared by his audience. That is, it is not a point that is in dispute; it is a shared presupposition. Hence, to emphasize it seems clumsily redundant, while to make it the heart of a thesis paragraph seems positively otiose.42 (2) Most commentators would want to read Hab 2:4 in Galatians simi larly to its apparent meaning in Romans although, once again, it is formally possible to argue that Paul has radically changed his use of this text between these two letters (something of a bonus for his opponents, should they get wind of it!). But a reading of Hab 2:4 along with its associated instances of in Gal 3:11 in theocentric terms leads to extraordinary hermeneutical acrobatics. Such a reading really cannot integrate the elements in this compact discussionAbraham and Gen 15:6, Christ's purchase of sinners, and the torah and its observancein a way that makes much sense at all. And, once again, to my knowledge no commentator actually attempts this. (3) One of Hab 2:4's enduring puzzles has been its textual form: Paul is following no known textual variant when he speaks simply of . But if Paul really wishes to speak of God's faithfulness in using Hab 2:4, why has he ignored those versions of the verse, in well-known textual traditions that

Ksemann notes the redundancy generated by the reading (Commentary, 23); see also, most clearly, Rom 3:3, 5.

42

280

Journal of Biblical Literature

he himself is familiar with, that make this explicit? The tradition represented by MSS S and are unequivocal: the righteous one lives . These considerations alone would probably be enough to weaken seriously a reading of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 in terms of the faithfulness of God. A fourth consideration is utterly fatal to it, but it presupposes once again the equation between the phrase and the text Hab 2:4 in Paul's discussions. If this equation holds, then the interpreter of Rom 1:17 faces exegetical conse quences far more extensive than those merely of v. 17 itself. This verseas far as possibleshould now be interpreted in a fashion that is sustainable for the rest of Paul's uses of this phrase in any ensuing arguments. Ironically, the traditional, anthropocentric interpreter has far less difficulty with this requirement than the theocentric interpreter (and hence much of the tenacity of the traditional exegesis of Rom 1:17: it is imported back from this wider reading). An advocate of anthropocentric concerns in Paul can read most of his arguments in Romans that use in a coherent fashion. The theocentric interpreter in many places finds this difficult, however. Moreover, the reading is impossible in 3:26 and 4:16, that is, wherever or its equivalent is combined in a genitive construction with someone other than Goda not infrequent occurrence. Usually the phrase is combined with in these constructions, but in 4:12 and 16 it is joined to Abraham. Clearly the faithfulness of God cannot be present in these texts! However, a christological reading can suggest that Abraham is a typological anticipation of Jesus' messianic faithfulness, while the traditionalist generally construes these genitives objectively, as is well known, and argues that Abraham is a type of the Christian believer (although his genitives are subjective!).43 Thus, a criterion of consistency in the interpretation of throughout the argument of Romans proves utterly embarrassing to the theocentric reading.44 The second horn of our dilemma has now been duly sharpened, and it seems that the theocentric interpreter has nowhere left to sit: one must either be exposed as contextually insensitive or thematically redundant and incon sistentor abandon the reading altogther. Really, this last course is the only exegetically satisfactory option. The final possible reading of the phrase in v. 17a is the seldomconsidered alternative of the faithfulness of Christ 45 indeed, at this point it
Furthermore, it is an extremely difficult reading in Rom 9:30-10:8 (and in Galatians, where in 2:16 it is impossible, as in 2:20; 3:22, 26). 44 This is not to disparage the faithfulness of God, which is clearly an important theme for Paul (cf. 3:3), but it is to suggest that Paul does not express this idea with the phrase and probably not with Hab 2:4 either. 45 Faithfulness in the sense of his obedience and perseverance to the will of God, culminating in Calvary (cf. Rom 1:5; 3:25; 5:1, 10; 5:18; and esp. Phil 2:5-11). No doubt Jesus believed in the existence of God, but as the author of James remarks, "even the demons do that!" (Jas 2:19). Some opponents of the christological reading of rather vulgarize it by suggesting that it speaks of Christ's "blierand also demand verbal equivalents elsewhere in Paul for this idea (which,
43

Campbell: Romans 1:17

281

is the only semantic alternative left standing. Within the broader cosmic eschatological perspective it suggests the following translation: 'The eschato logical saving righteousness of God is being revealed in the gospel by means of faithfulness (namely, the faithfulness of Christ), with the goal of faith/fulness (in the Christian)." On this reading Paul is stating that the eschatological salva tion of God is actually being revealed now in the gospel, the substantive point of that revelation being the life and death of Christ. In particular, it was the faithful obedience of Christ through Calvary that revealed God's salvation and also created the possibility of individual salvation through belief and per severance until the eschaton (an identification that becomes clearer later on in Romans: see 3:25; 5:1, 9; etc.). Thus, for Paul, Christ's obedience and obedient death are both the content of the gospel and the focus of the eschaton. To our knowledge, this reading generates no contextual problems whatso ever. It smoothly continues the opening emphasis of the letter and the focus of w. 16-17 on the substance of the gospel, and integrates with the sense of cosmic disclosure suggested by v. 18. It integrates with the cosmic, escha tological connotation Paul usually evokes when employing the verb . It also integrates neatly with a particular construal of Hab 2:4 necessarily, a christological or messianic onebut this question of Paul's messianic deployment of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b should be considered in a little more detail. VII. Some Observations concerning 1.17b As we have already intimated, in Hab 2:4, when it is quoted in Rom 1:17b, should take the same sense as the immediately preceding instance of the phrase in v. 17ato argue otherwise leads to unacceptable interpretative convolutions. Our suggestion concerning 17a therefore neces sarily involves reading Hab 2:4 as a messianic proof-text.46 Certainly, if it cannot be so read, this would falsify our suggested reading of v. 17a. Various scholars, however, have already proposed this, although their suggestion has usually fallen on deaf ears.47 Nevertheless, they have proved that such a reading is perfectly
not surprisingly, do not exist: see Dunn, "Once More," esp. 734-35, 736-37). The preceding distinc tion should avoid much of this confusion. 46 Most of the previous discussion of Hab 2:4 has heatedly debated whether modifies the noun or the verb: see the literature listed by Dunn (Romans 1-8, 36-37). On our christological reading, must be an agent or instrument of the verb. 47 So C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952 [Fontana, 1965]) 51; and Anthony T. Hanson, Studies in Paul's Technique and Theohgy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 39-45; endorsed by Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 150-57; see also T. W. Manson, "The Argu ment from Prophecy,'7TS 4 (1945) 129-36; J. A. Sanders, "Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament," JR 39 (1959) 233; B. Lindars, Old Testament Apolo&tic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961) 230-32; and the only suggestion from a recent commentator, Brendan Byrne, Reckoning with Romans: A Contemporary Reading ofPauVs Gospel (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986) 48. Hays's more recent case is again definitive

282

Journal of Biblical Literature

acceptable; it simply hasn t been possible to show previously that it is necessary, and so the traditional reading has continued to be preferred. 48 With our exposure of the traditional reading's previously unnoticed difficulties in v. 17a, however, the quoted text no longer has to bear this burden of demonstration: it need only be shown how suitable Paul's citation is as a messianic witness, without actually making any claims as to necessity. This reading can then re inforce, as against disqualify, our suggestion concerning v. 17a. We will only summarize the evidence for this reading here, since the case has already been well made elsewhere. Our first cluster of observations focuses on the adjective , which is present in Hab 2:4 in an arthrous, substantive form. A reference to Christ as integrates smoothly with Paul's elevated use of this word else where and perhaps integrates more smoothly than a reference to humanity, since Paul so sternly and repeatedly characterizes humanity in the early chapters of Romans as and .49 may also be functioning in Hab 2:4 as a more stereotyped, titular reference to Jesus as the Messiah. The phrase is found fairly frequently in the NT as an early Jewish Christian christological title, and certainly makes good sense as Jewish mes sianic nomenclature (if it is not actually attested in pre-/non-Christian Jewish sources).50 Paul's evident fondness for articular substantives as titles for Christ again, particularly well attested in Romans lends still further support to a titular use of in 1:17 as a reference to Christ.51 Moreover, for Paul to use
on this point: " T h e Righteous One as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul's Apocalyptic Hermeneutics," in Apocalyptic and the New Testament (ed. J. Marcus and M. L. Soards; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 191-215. 48 Hays admits candidly that "[t]hese reflections about the possibility that Paul understood Hab. 2.4 as an apocalyptic testimonium to the coming of an eschatological deliverer are of course not probative in their force . . ." ("The Righteous One' as Eschatological Deliverer," 209, 211). 49 The evidence is complicated by Paul's occasional use of to denote simply a "good" or "upright" person, often in a legal context, over against rightness as a divine attribute that approaches perfection (see BAGD, 195-96: for the "good" man, see Matt 1:19; 1 John 3:7; and Rev 22:11). A shift in usage has been noted by, among others, G. Schrenk, TDNT 2. 182-91. That Paul would be using in a legal or common sense in Rom 1:17b is, in any case, unlikely: Is Paul's gospel concerned with mere "goodness"? 50 See Acts 3:14; 7:52; and, most significantly, 22:14, where Luke actually places it on the lips of Paul (although its use is ascribed to Ananias). This of course may not testify to Paul's knowledge of the title, but it does suggest that Luke thought the title a standard one in the context of Jewish Christian proclamation. The title also occurs in Jas 5:6, anarthrously in 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:1 (and 2:29 and 3:7?), and possibly at 2 Tim 4:8. It is also in 1 Enoch 38:2 and 53:6 (see R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity [London: SCM, 1970] 466-47; and the now-definitive statement by Richard B. Hays, " T h e Righteous One as Eschatological Deliv eredalthough I feel that Hays could perhaps have strengthened his case further by giving greater attention to the significance of the presence [or absence] of the definite article [see n. 51 below]). 51 This stylistic tendency seems evident in Romans 6, where Paul discusses the relation between Christ's death, Christian baptism, and sin. Robin Scroggs argues that here refers to Christ ("Rom 6:7 ," NTS 10 [1963] 104-8; see also 8:34 and 14:9). A parallel tendency to describe Christ in terms of articular substantives is apparent

Campbell: Romans 1:17

283

a text to support a christological point would not be unusual, especially in Romans, where he does so frequently.52 In close relation to the foregoing, a case can be made for the use of Hab 2:4 in the early church as part of a messianic testimonium. C. H. Dodd first suggested that the practice of collating testimonia was widespread in the early church. 53 We know that Hab 2:4 itself was used in pesher exegesis at Qumran, which suggests that it was at least discussed within late Second Temple Judaism.54 Moreover, that Hab 2:4 was so used by the early church (and perhaps parts of Judaism) is suggested directly by Heb 10:37-38, which almost certainly uses a messianic form of Hab 2:4 within the Septuagintal textual tradition (cf. MS A etc.). The crafted parallelism between and suggests this (cf. Isa 35:4; Matt 3:11; 11:3; John 1:15, 27; cf. also Hab 2:3, which is included in the citation), as does the inversion of the pronoun to produce the distinctly messianic phrase . Admittedly, chap. 11 of Hebrews discusses anthropocentric faith rather extensively, but what is less often noticed is that this long discussion is grounded in chap. 12 on the faithfulness of Christ; . . . (Heb 12:2).55

elsewhere in the letter, e.g., "the son" (Rom 1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32), "the Christ" (Rom 9:3, 5; 14:18; 15:3, 7, 19; 16:16), and "the one" (Rom 5:15, 17, 18, 19). 52 Paul cites scripture extensively throughout Romans (at leastfifty-fourinstances), and, almost without exception, these texts are either theocentric or christocentric when used positively, or involved in a negative critique of humanity and Israel (references from R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975] 110-11; Nestle-Aland lists sixtyfive explicit references and numerous allusions: 899, 901-11). The one exception to these trends is Gen 15:6, which, of course, uses . Hence, if Paul is using Hab 2:4 with reference to Christ in 1:17, this function is certainly supported by that of numerous other such citations in the rest of the letter; see Isa 8:14/28:16 in 9:33; Deut 9:4/30:12-14 in 10:6-7; Isa 59:20-21/27:9 in 11:26-27; Ps 69:9 (68:10 LXX) in 15:3; and Isa 11:10 in 15:12. 53 See Dodd, According to the Scriptures; a more sophisticated rehearsal of this project may now be found in Richard B. Hays's Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). 54 See W. H. Brownlee, "Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament," NTS 3 (1956-57) 209; and J. A. Fitzmyer, "Habakkuk 2:3-4 and the New Testament," in To Advance the Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 23-24. 55 The commentators do not, however, often notice thisperhaps because they are overly influenced by the traditional reading of Hab 2:4 in Paul! On the point, see Hays ("The Righteous One' as Eschatological Deliverer," 202-6), who also cites the more extensive discussions of A. Strobel (Untersuchungen zum eschatolog^schen Verzgerungsproblem auf Grund der spt jdischurchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff. [NovTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1961]), Hanson (Studies in Paul, 44-45), and Dietrich-Alex Koch ("Der Text von Hab 2:4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen Testament," ZNW 76 [1985] 68-85) in support of the point. Hays accepts that the auctor ad Hebraios does not apply the text in a messianic fashion, although the text is cited as such. I am not so sure: the genitive constructions of 10:39 may allow for an interpretation within which the letter's recipients are drawn into and hence are "ofthe faithfulness, as against the shrinking back, of the messianic protagonist of w. 37-38, instead of the more nonmessianic application of merely imitating the qualities themselves. The dialectic between the faithfulness of both "the elders," Jesus himself, and the letter's recipients, through chaps. 11-12 to my mind support this.

284

Journal of Biblical Literature

Taken together, these observations suggest that a case can at least be made for the early church's messianic reading of Hab 2:4. If Paul shared such a reading with the rest of the early church, then it is unlikely that he would have departed from it (and certainly not without clearly indicating it in the context). Alternatively, if Hebrews was written significantly later than Paul, it may be that its messianic usage was derived directly from him; the auctor ad Hebraios seems to be part of the Pauline circle (see 13:23).56 In view of these arguments it seems reasonable to read Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b with reference to the faithfulness of Christ. Certainly many features of the text, in combination with Paul's predilections elsewhere, make this a pos sible interpretation. And at least this reading can go some way toward explaining Paul's puzzling textual variant.57 Furthermore, if our contextual and lexical arguments concerning the interpretation of in v. 17a hold (and only if), then it becomes necessary to read Hab 2:4 in this way. Such a reading would mean that Hab 2:4 is attesting scripturally to Paul's presentation of the gospel of Christ specifically through Jesus' death on the cross, which is (argues the rest of v. 17) the perceptible historical point where God's eschatological salva tion has finally become apparent. Thus, "the prophets" do indeed testify to the gospel concerning Gods soneven if latter-day exegetes would not approve of Paul's hermeneutical procedure. In view of this, however, the text is not a scriptural attestation of how the gospel is appropriated, as has usually been thought: its focus is substantive rather than instrumental, and christocentric rather than anthropocentric. With the establishment of this equation between , Hab 2:4, and the faithfulness of the Messiah in 1:17, much in the rest of Paul's argu ment within Romans is both resolved and clarified. Certainly the contentious constructions in chap. 3 are christological, while much of the rest of Paul's discussion in chaps. 3-4 and 9-10 is tilted in a more christological direction although to discuss these interpretative consequences here as they 58 deserve is unfortunately not possible. Probably all that can be claimed at
56 Ben Witherington III suggests such a dependence but does not perceive a shared or derived messianic interpretation ("The Influence of Galatians on Hebrews," NTS 37 [1991] 146-52, esp. 148-49). The arguments of those listed in the preceding note rather overwhelm this reticence, however. 57 The absence of the pronoun specifically liberates the meaning of from either a precise reference to God (as in the LXX or S), or to humanity (as in the MT). Two conclu sions are then possible: (1) Paul intended the phrase to include all three possible objects (God, Christ, and humanityor at least two of these: so Hays, but with the primary emphasis on Christ; see his Faith of Jesus Christ, 15-57). But this seems an excessively kaleidoscopic readingit rejects nothing and so, in a way, decides nothing. Or (2) Paul intended the text to refer specifically to Christ, in which case he had to excise the pronoun to make this possible (that is, to avoid point ing the faithfulness to someone else). Note, this excision also makes it possible to deploy as a slogan throughout more complex arguments, which would not really be possible if the phrase was encumbered with a possessive pronoun. 58 For some beginnings, see Hays, " and Pauline Christology," 720-24.

Campbell: Romans 1:17

285

this point is that the burden of proof now rests firmly on those who would read many of these genitives and arguments in a way that does not link with in a subjective fashion, that is, as an elliptical reference, mediated by the terminology of Hab 2:4, to his death on the cross. Yet even this minimal concession opens up the possibility of a major rvaluation of Paul's argument in Romans (especially chaps. 1-4), and of his theology as a whole.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.