[1] Dodd, C. H., The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1932), p. 46.Google Scholar

[2] Bultmann, R., Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die Kynish-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 13 Heft) (Göttingen, 1910), p. 67Google Scholar: ‘aber es ist deutlich, dass dem Paulus diese dialogische Redeweise nicht ganz in Fleisch und Blut übergegangen ist. Die Fiktion des mitredenden Gegners hat für ihn nicht die Kraft, die sie bei den Griechen hat. Under formuliert deshalb die Einwendung oft nicht mit direkten Worten des Gegners, sondern als seine eigenen Worte, freilich im Sinne des Gegners. Dafür sind charakteristisch die Wendungen: τí ον ⋯ροῡµεν; und ⋯λλ⋯ λ⋯λω.’

[3] Jeremias, J., ‘Zur Gedankenführung in den Paulinischen Briefen’ in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1973), pp. 146–54Google Scholar; p. 149: ‘Dieser Brief ist in seinen ersten elf Kapiteln nicht eine dogmatische Abhandlung, sondern ein Sendschrieben, das erwachsen ist aus einem vielfach geführten Dialogus cum Iudaeis.’

[4] C. H. Dodd, op. cit., p. 43.

[5] Godet, F., Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, n.d.), p. 220Google Scholar. So too Käsemann, E., An die Römer (Tübingen, , 1976), p. 73.Google Scholar

[6] See for example Käsemann, E., New Testament Questions of Today (London, 1969), p. 169 n. 1Google Scholar, and Lyonnet, S., ‘De notione “iustitiae Dei” apud S. Paulum’ in Verbum Domini 42 (1964), pp. 121–52.Google Scholar

[7] Only the first advantage is given in this chapter. A list of other advantages is given later in the Epistle in 9. 4, 5.

[8] Doeve, J. W., ‘Some notes with reference to τ⋯ λóγια τοṽ Θεοṽ in Romans 3. 2’ in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 111–23.Google Scholar

[9] Ibid., p. 122.

[10] Calvin, J., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1849), p. 115.Google Scholar

[11] For the meaning of ψευστ⋯ς compare the comment of M. Black on the word ψεṽσµα in verse 7 (Romans (New Century Bible, London, 1973), p. 63): ‘the meaning of the Greek word is “lie” occasionally, but rarely, it is found in classical Greek meaning “deceit”, “fraud”. In Biblical Greek (along with its cognates) it means “unreliable conduct” and is used e.g. of fraud and stealing (Hos. 7. 1; Jer. 6. 13, etc.). (“To do falsehood” is to practise deception in word or deed). The word then comes to have the semantic range of its Hebrew equivalents (esp. kazabh: “disappoint”, “fail”, “prove unreliable”, e.g. Isa. 58. 11 (of a spring)), and to mean “unreliability”, “perfidiousness”. The masculine ψευστ⋯ς means, not only a liar, but an unreliable, perfidious, faithless person.’

[12] Cranfield, C. E. B., A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1975), ad loc.Google Scholar

[13] Brown, Driver and Briggs, , Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1952), p. 775 col. 2 - Note 1 s.v. .Google Scholar

[14] I take κρíνεσθαι to be in the middle voice - ‘when thou enterest into judgment’.

[15] Käsemann, E., An die Römer (Tübingen, 1974), pp. 76 f.: ‘Rechtfertigung der Gottlosenmeint Gottes Sieg über die Welt, die mit ihm streitet … Die Gegner haben ganz richtig verstanden, dass mit den Zitaten die justificatio impii behauptet wurde.’Google Scholar

[16] S. Lyonnet, op. cit., p. 127, quotes the commentary of Thomas Aquinas on Ps.-Dionysii de divin. nom. cap. I lect. 1 (ed. Marietti, No. 22), where he is commenting on the phrase δικιοσ⋯νη σωστικ⋯: ‘Et hoc quidem facit Deus in iustitia salutari. In hoc enim ratio distributivae iustitiae consistit, quod datur unicuique sec. suam conditionem. Et sicut per ordinem distributivae iustitiae constitutae a principe civitatis salvatur totus ordo politicus, ita per hunc ordinem iustitiae salvatur a Deo totus ordo universi … Et hoc quidem facit ut decet Deum: eum enim decet sua bonitate salvare quos condidit.’

[17] E. Käsemann, op. cit., p. 77: ‘Das nur von Pls. im Sinn von “erweisen” gebrauchte Verb δικιοσ⋯νη (Bauer Wb 1565).’

[18] Op. cit., p. 184. µ⋯ sometimes introduces a hesitant question, where the possibility of a positive answer is tentatively put forward. But this also would be most unsuitable in the mouth of an objector.

[19] F. Godet, op. cit., p. 228.

[20] Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1962), p. 64.Google Scholar

[21] Cf. Barrett, op. cit., p. 185: ‘Paul defends his position in vv. 15 f.; at least, he appears to do so, but it is often held that in fact he does no such thing, but merely reiterates his offensive views in shriller tones.’

[22] Ibid., p. 61. Metzger also prefers ει δ⋯ on exegetical grounds (Metzger, B. M., A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (London, 1971), p. 507).Google Scholar

[23] Op. cit., p. 46.

[24] Barth, K., A shorter Commentary on Romans (Richmond, 1960), p. 40.Google Scholar

[25] Meyer, H. A. W., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1873). For γ⋯ρ in this sense cf. Rom. 15. 3; 1 Cor. 15. 41. It is fair to point out that Meyer's exposition of this passage does not agree in detail with the exposition in this article.Google Scholar

[26] The verb ⋯περíσσευσεν is in the aorist tense. This could be taken as a Gnomic Aorist, or Paul could be thinking of his past experience leading up to the present tense of v. 7b.

[27] Cf. the comment on Gal. 2. 15 in Lightfoot, J. B., Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1874), p. 114Google Scholar: ‘⋯µαρτωλοí: “sinners”. The word was almost a synonym for ἒθνη in the religious phraseology of the Jews. See 1 Macc. 2. 44, Clem. Hom. xi 16 οŭτως ρς ούχì 'Ιουδαῑος, ⋯µαρτωλòς κ.τ.λ., and compare Luke 6. 32, 33 with Matt. 5. 47, and especially Matt. 26. 45 with Luke 18. 32.’

[28] Those who regard these words as spoken by an imaginary objector are not able to give a satisfactory explanation for κ⋯γώ. Käsemann, following Lietzmann, believes that the καí governs, not the word ⋯γώ with which it is connected by crasis, but the word κρíνοµαι which follows. However, the examples they quote do not prove the possibility of this construction. In Rom. 5. 3 καí governs the whole phrase καυχώµεθα ⋯ν ταῑς θλíψεσιν; in 1 Thess. 2. 13 the meaning is, ‘we join you in thanksgiving’; in 1 Thess. 3. 5 κ⋯γώ means ‘I, Paul’, whereby Paul speaks personally, in contrast to the first person plural of 3. 1, 2 referring to himself and Silas. The other examples adduced by Lietzmann are admitted by Käsemann to be unconvincing.

[29] Cf. B. Gerhardsson's description of the teaching method of the Jewish rabbis in Memory and Manuscript (Lund, 1961), p. 183: ‘the pupil is a witness to his teacher's words; he is a witness to his actions as well. He does not only say, “I heard from my teacher” but “I saw my teacher do this or that”.’

[30] Cf. Johnson, S. L.: ‘Studies in Romans’ in Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973), p. 337Google Scholar: ‘There is a fine irony in the final statement … Paul concludes his charges against those who object to judgment as sinners by saying “whose judgment is just”. This final word is directed to Jews particularly, as the context indicates. They thought they were excused from divine judgment and free to judge the Gentiles, but they overlooked the justice of God. Thus, Paul has very skilfully returned to the charge with which he began the section on the sin of the Jews, “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things” (Rom. 2. 1 ASV).’