SBL Meeting, 2005, Philadelphia
11/21/2005
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Independence I - Marriott
Â
Theme: Reformation Readings of Romans
Kathy Ehrensperger, University of
Wales Lampeter, Presiding
Mark W. Elliott, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
Behind
and Beyond Parker: The Key Moments and Voices in Reformation Romans
Commentating (20 min)
Ekkehard Stegemann,
University of Basel, Switzerland
The Alienation of Humankind (20 min)
R. Ward Holder, Saint Anselm College
Calvin's
Hermeneutic and Tradition: An Augustinian Reception of Romans 7 (20
min)
Stanley Stowers, Brown University, Respondent (15
min)
Cristina Grenholm, Karlstad University, Respondent
(15 min)
David Steinmetz, Duke University, Respondent (15 min)
William Campbell, University of Wales, Respondent (15 min)
Discussion (30 min)
Mark W. Elliott, University of St. Andrews,
Scotland
Behind and Beyond Parker: The Key Moments and Voices in Reformation Romans
Commentating
We are indebted to T.H.L. ParkerÂ’s "Commentaries on Romans 1532-1542" (T&T Clark, 1986) in which he deals painstakingly with the 11 commentaries written between 1532 and 1542. Parker was prepared to state his opinions: Melanchthon was a giant, Calvin is to be praised for his single-minded objectivity. There is admiration for Bucer even though he is unreadable. Bullinger is great on theory, less so in practice. Yet, Sadoleto (pace Roussel) is quite mediocre; indeed, as a group, the Catholics seemed to find Romans hard going. They did not use rhetorical tools to explain texts. Perhaps they were looking over their shoulders; after all, Sorbonne and Catharinus censured CaietanÂ’s attempts for being interested in Erasmus NT and the OT Hebrew. There are three matters in which there is room for complementing ParkerÂ’s work. There seems in Parker a tip-toeing around controversial and polemical theology and no real account of the awareness of other opposed views. Second, in giving us what 11 commentators had to say on Rom 1.18-23; 2.13; 3.20-28, he does not centre on the passage which must have given the sharpest differences of opinion: Romans 7:14-8:4. Third, in limiting himself to a decade the story of Romans in the Reformation lacks its beginning as well as its resolution. ParkerÂ’s work is invaluable and is a spur to more research rather than a last word. In this paper, a review of treatments of Rom 7:14-8:4 and their reception will aim to show more clearly what was at issue between the interpreters.
Ekkehard Stegemann,
The Alienation of Humankind
If one takes Krister Stendahl's pathbreaking article on "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" as the beginning of a de-Lutherizing of Paul, the time has come to take a fresh look at Luther's Paulinism. Stendahl has rightly pointed to unbridgeable gaps between Paul and Luther. Among them is not least what Stendahl called the "introspective conscience" and the "individualistic" concept of salvation. But we must ask what Luther was confronting in his own day and whether his position was a kind of Paulinism, despite the fact that it does not accord with the historical conclusions of our exegesis. Worth examining in this respect is the revival of the Greco-Roman concept of self-mastery in 16th-century Humanism. The relationship between Humanism and the Reformation as movements of learned people was a close one, as illustrated by Erasmus and Melanchthon, and especially the Swiss Reformed movement. Yet Luther's dispute with Erasmus on the "liberum arbitrium" discloses a gap between Humanists and Reformers at one decisive point. Erasmus was influenced by the concept of self-mastery, especially that of Epicurus. He held that freedom of the will was a possibility and that one might occupy a moral middle ground guided by reason and law. Luther thought this to be presumptuous: there was no neutral, middle position; sin determines the world and human reality; sin which marks the gap between God and human beings. It is this (anthropological) radicalism of Luther's theology which, in my view, constituted his Paulinism. The paper will seek todemonstrate that Paul himself (esp. in Romans 7:7ff.) held this "tragic" anthropology, although within an apocalyptic world-view, but also in dispute with Greek and Roman concepts of self-mastery.
R. Ward Holder, Saint Anselm College
Calvin's Hermeneutic and Tradition: An Augustinian Reception of Romans 7
The 7th chapter of Romans considers the law. However, at vs.
14, Paul abruptly changes to the first person. The history of Christian exegesis
on this pericope has broken into two broad streams. One claims that Paul's
language represents a pre-conversion state, that the misery described in vss.
14-24 represents the life before receiving Christ's grace. The other maintains
that this passage signifies the state of the believer after grace, that Paul
is characterizing the life of faith, whether autobiographically or symbolically.
John Calvin, in his commentary on Romans, notes that although Augustine had
first chosen the first option, he later corrected himself and that, in fact,
this passage cannot be referred to anything but the regenerate (non aliter
quam de renatis posse exponi). But why did Calvin make this choice himself? David
Steinmetz has pointed out that this was hardly a "Protestant" choice
in the early modern period, as Cajetan made the
same choice. Steinmetz makes clear that this choice was main-stream in the
16th century. But what Steinmetz does not consider is why Calvin made this
choice. Certainly, Calvin was not hesitant about disagreeing with Augustine's
exegesis. Further, there is significant biblical support for the alternative
choice, which should have borne weight with Calvin. The paper argues that
this passage proves to be a test-case for Calvin
choosing to have his hermeneutical principles overwhelm his exegetical practices,
which led him to choose an answer which, though possible, is not that which
his own exegetical methods would have dictated.