Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:51:24.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘You Abominate False Gods; but Do You Rob Shrines?’ (ROM 2.22b)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

J. Duncan M. Derrett
J. Duncan M. Derrett
Affiliation:
Half Way House, High Street, Blockley, Moreton in Marsh, Glos. GL56 9EX, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The words ⋯ βδελνσσóμενος τ⋯ εἴδωλα ἱεροσνλεῖς; have given constant trouble, as translations show. They appear in a subordinate passage but they deserve attention. The immediate context is clear. It appears that God will punish sinners of every race and culture, but those subject to the Law of Moses will be judged by that Law (Rom 2.12). It is not a nullity. Nevertheless the Judgment will apply a law of conscience to all, including them (Rom 2.15–16).

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 558 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 REB. Cf. Isa 52.5 LXX; Ezek 36.20; Sifre Deut §148 (trans. Hammer, R., Sifre [YJS: New Haven & London: Yale University, 1986] 187Google Scholar). One profanes the Name even by committing any transgression which shows laxity of behaviour: Maimonides, Sēfer ha-Miswôt, Neg. Comm. 63 (trans. Chavel, C. H., Maimonides. The Commandments [2 vols.; London & New York: Soncino, 1967] 2.61–3 at 62Google Scholar).

2 Tacitus, hist. 5.4–12Google Scholar; Whittaker, M., Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge: University, 1984) 20–6, 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Siculus, Diodorushist. 34.1Google Scholar (Whittaker, 73); 1 Pet 2.11.

3 Wisd 18.4; 1 En 105.1; Or. Sib. 3.194–5; Josephus c. Ap. 2.41; Luke 2.32; Moore, G. F., Judaism (2 vols.; Cambridge MA: Harvard University, 1958) 1.228–9Google Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Romer (KEK: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 87–8Google Scholar.

4 Wilson; Alford; RV; Ostervald; Twentieth Century Bible; Weymouth; RSV; C. K. Williams; Schonfield; NWT; TEV; Barclay; NEB; Bibbia Concordata; Einheitsübersetzung; NIV; NAV, Bíblia Sagrada; Fuster-Cueto; Cassirer.

5 J. B. Phillips (1958).

6 Vulgata; Wiclif; Rheims; Geneva Bible (1606); AV; RV margin. Polus, M., Synopsis Criticorum (5 vols.; London, 1679) 5.52–3Google Scholar; id., Annotations upon the Holy Bible (2 vols.; London, 1685) ad loc.: Jews were idolatrous by covetousness; by taking things due to be destroyed; by withholding what they should have offered to God; by robbing God of his due. So up to 1685 Paul's meaning was unknown.

7 Tyndale; Cranmer; Geneva Bible (1557); Bengel (1742); Dodd, Moffatt. C. H. takes Paul literally and contradicts offatt (Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [London: Collins, 1960] 64)Google Scholar. ‘Where is the piety which does not approach God too nearly?’: Barth, K., The Epistle to the Romans (Oxford: University, 1968) 73Google Scholar. Best, E., The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Cambridge: University, 1967) 31Google Scholar perceived in the NEB a charge that Jews enriched themselves from religions in which they did not believe, but opined that they reduced God to the level of an idol. T. Scott (ed. Symington, 1841) construed: ‘defraud the Lord of his due through idolatrous love of money’. Zink, J., Das Neue Testament (9th ed.; Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1978)Google Scholar: ‘Hast du nicht selbst an deinem und fremdem Geld einen Götzen, der dir wichtiger ist als Gott?’

8 For casuistry on theft see Derrett, , A Textbook for Novices (Turin: Indologica Taurinensia, 1983)Google Scholar ch. 2 (investigates ‘taking what has not been given’). For covetousness as a sin see 4Q418 fr. 10, col. 2, lines 9–10 (Eisenman, R. H. and Wise, M., Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered [Shaftesbury: Element, 1992] 254Google Scholar).

9 Derrett, , ‘An Example of Tax-Evasion in Medieval India’, BSOAS 19/1 (1957) 162–6Google Scholar. It was more a case of tax-avoidance.

10 Derrett, , Introduction to Modern Hindu Law (Bombay: Oxford University)Google Scholar ch. 9; id., Religion, Law and the State in India (London: Faber, 1968) ch. 14.

11 Isa 41.29; 44.10; Ep. Jer. Josephus c. Ap. 2.263 (Socrates robbed no temple) accepts temple-robbing as a crime outside Israel.

12 Liddell-ScotWones, Greek-English Lexicon, new ed., s. v. ἱερσνλος the citations from Menander. In classical Greek the word-cluster centres on temple-robbery, in patristic on abuse of sacred things or people. On the disgrace, see Plato Rep. 1.344B. Michel, , Römer, 89Google Scholar n. 3 defines ἱεροσνλεῖν as temple-robbery, disrespectful behaviour towards a shrine (the applied meaning), and misappropriation of temple funds. Philo detaches ἱεροσυλα from the crime and applies it metaphorically: Goodenough, E. R., The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (Amsterdam: Philo, 1968) 100, 243Google Scholar.

13 Plato Laws 9.854E sets a tone; Lycurgus, c. Leoc. 65–6Google Scholar(ed., trans., Burtt, J. O., Minor Attic Orators 2 [LCL 395: Cambridge MA: Harvard University/London: Heinemann, 1980] 60–2Google Scholar; Antipho, de caede Herodis (Maidment, K. J., Minor Attic Orators 1 [LCL 308: Cambridge, as above, 1968] 164–5Google Scholar; 2 Mace 13.6; Ptolemy Euergetes II, Cleopatra II, and Cleopatra III in 118 BC: Pap. Teb. 5; A. S. Hunt and Edgar, C. C., ed., Select Papyri (3 vols.; LCL 282; Cambridge, as above, 1977) 2 no. 210.58–74 at 62Google Scholar: ‘wilful murders and ἱεροσνλαι’ excluded from amnesty; Taubenschlag, R., Law of Greco-Roman Egypt (1st ed.: New York: Herald Square, 1944) 364Google Scholar; Edict of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I on Sacrilege (AD 380)(Theodosian Code 16.2.25): Coleman-Norton, P. R., Roman State and Christian Church (3 vols.; London: SPCK, 1966)Google Scholar no. 168, 1.356–9. Cf. Lucian, mort. Pereg. 24Google Scholar.

14 Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (London: SCM, 1983) 124–6Google Scholar.

15 Deut 12.2–3; Sifre Deut. §§60, 61; Davies, W. D. and Finkelstein, Louis, ed., Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: University, 1984) 1.351–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tacitus, hist. 5.4.5, 13Google Scholar; Strabo, geog. 16.2.35Google Scholar (Whittaker, , Jews, 50–1)Google Scholar; Cassius, Diohist. 37.16–17Google Scholar (Whittaker, 55).

16 Michel, , Römer, 89Google Scholar; b. Av. Zar. 50a; Sifre Deut. §344.

17 Kaser, M., Roman Private Law (3rd ed., 1964; trans. Dannenbring, R.; Durban: Butter-worths, 1965) 80Google Scholar.

18 Thomas, J. A. C., Textbook of Roman Law (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976) 128Google Scholar; Gaius, Inst. 2.2–9Google Scholar; Justinian, Inst. 1.7–10Google Scholar; Moyle, J. B., Imperator Iustiniani Institutionum libri quatuor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923) 195–6Google Scholar; id., The Institutes of Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 36.

19 Thomas, , Textbook, 127–8Google Scholar. A purchaser in good faith was not without remedy (281 and n. 17). Frauds did occur.

20 See n. 13 above. Res sacrae and res religiosae were not subject to furtum (civil-law ‘theft’) which otherwise gave rise to an actio poenalis and/or an actio rei persecutoria. Thomas, , Textbook, 355, 357Google Scholar.

21 Tombs, sepulchres, burial grounds: Thomas, , Textbook, 128Google Scholar.

22 See n. 33 below.

23 Pap. Oxy. 1449 (Hunt, and Edgar, , Select Papyri 2, no. 495, pp. 530–4Google Scholar).

24 Even Apollo's lands may require redemption (Polybius, hist. 18.16)Google Scholar; Geller, M. J., ‘New Information on Antiochus IV’, BSOAS 54/1 (1991) 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walbank, F. W., Hellenistic World (London: Collins, 1981) 86–7Google Scholar.

25 Lycurgus, c. Leoc. 136–7Google Scholar: a statue abandoned to the enemy to steal or deface; Ep. Jer. 56–7; Justinian, , Digesta 11.7.36Google Scholar (during enemy occupation the land remains profanum); m. Av. Zar. 4.7.

26 M. Sab. 9.1; Av. Zar. 3.6.

27 M. Sab. 9.6 meŠammŠēy 10vôdat Llîlîm (what subserves idolatry: m. 'Av. Zar. 4.3).

28 Ep. Jer. 15–24, 29, 34, 42, 51, 54, 64. Idols are liable to be stolen.

29 B. Ned. 44b; b. Sanh. 49a; Maimonides, , Mishneh Tôrāh (‘Code’) 12.2.1.1 (trans. Klein, J., The Code of Maimonides. Book Twelve. The Book of Acquisition [YJS 5: New Haven: Yale University, 1951] 110Google Scholar; cf. 113).

30 M. Ber. 8.6; Dem. 6.10; 'Av. Zar. 3.3, 9 (extra-rigorous); 4.2, 3, 5.1, 2.Sifre Deut. § 96; ‘Set apart’ but not dedicated: m. Tem. 6.1. Culpable provision: m. Hul. 2.7, B.Q. 7.2, 4. Cf. m. 'Av. Zar. 2.3. Intriguing casuistry:m. 'Av. Zar. 3.4 (Danby, H., The Mishnah [London: Oxford University, 1933] 440Google Scholar).

31 M. 'Av. Zar. 1.1–4; 2.3; 5.7,10.

32 Desecrating (bῖṭṭēl): m. 'Av. Zar. 3.7; 4.4. Embellishments available to Jews (ib.). Urinating on it may not desecrate it (4.5). Property may be desecrated leaving the idol sacred: ibid. 4.4. Such behaviour connives at sacrilege. Abandoning an idol: m. 'Av. Zar. 4.6.

33 Josephus, c.Ap. 2.253–4Google Scholar (inserted glosses are of interest).

34 Repairs a regular charge: Pap. B.G.U. 362, coll. 6–8 (Hunt, and Edgar, , Select Papyri, no. 404, pp. 528–30Google Scholar). Incomes anticipated: Pap. Amh. 35 (Hunt and Edgar, no. 274, pp. 248–50).

35 Josephus, Ant. 4.207Google Scholar (Thackeray, H. St.J., Josephus 4, LCL 242, 1967, 575Google Scholar): ‘Let none blaspheme the gods which other cities revere, nor rob foreign temples, nor take treasure that has been dedicated in the name of any god.’

36 Methods of desecration: m. 'Av. Zar. 4.1 (the idol remaining undesecrated).

37 ‘Ye shall burn with fire the graven images of their gods: thou shalt not covet their silver, neither shalt thou take to thyself gold from them, lest thou shouldest offend thereby, because it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thine house, so shalt thou be an accursed thing like it; thou shalt utterly hate it, and altogether abominate it, because it is an accursed thing.’

38 Büichler, A., Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety (Jews' College Publications 8: London: Jews' College, 1922) esp. 38Google Scholar n. 1 (Elijah's query). Though Büchler exaggerates the identity of hasidic and Pharisaic piety, and lineal descent from hasîdim to Essenes and Pharisees is not called for, hasidic principles were current in Jesus' day, and emerged later. To keep the soul pure from ‘tainted gains’ was characteristic of ultra-piety: Josephus, BJ 2.141Google Scholar; Derrett, J. D. M., Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970) 75Google Scholar; m. SevῖἾt 8.11 (the bath-water problem); Maimonides, , Code 11.1.13.22Google Scholar (burial of dangerous material); Safrai, S., ‘Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature’, JJS 16 (1965) 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Seclusion: Maimonides, , Code 1.2.6.1Google Scholar (citing Lam 3.28; Jer 9.1). On idolatry note the scrupulosity of Maimonides, , Moreh Nevuῖm 3 ch. 37Google Scholar (trans. Pines, S., The Guide of the Perplexed [2 vols.; Chicago/London: University of Chicago, 1963] 2.545Google Scholar); Wilcox, M. in ANEW 2.25.1 (1982) 178–82Google Scholar.

39 Gǎnav requires a possessory act and a benefit to the possessor, but the wrongful taking is not specified: Jackson, B. S., Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972)Google Scholar ch. 5.

40 B. B.Q. 103b; Büchler, , Types, 36Google Scholar. Note Maimonides, , Code 1.2.5.13Google Scholar (of a scholar): ‘in commercial matters (divrēy meqah) he admits liability even where the Torah would not hold him liable’. The hāsÎd; will not handle assets that do not belong to him (Paquda, Bahyā b. Joseph ibn, Duties of the Heart, treatise 9, ch. 5 [trans. Hyamson, M., Jerusalem & New York: Feldheim, 2.321–3Google Scholar; M. Mansoor, London: Routledge, 1978, 416–17]).

41 Derrett, Law, ch. 16. Harvey, A. E., Strenuous Commands (London: SCM, 1990) 86Google Scholar(Prov 24.8–9), 195.

42 On Peter's rigorism see Derrett, , Studies in the New Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977–1989) 1.193–201Google Scholar. On the typology: Goppelt, L., Typos (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 119Google Scholar.

43 Derrett, , Making of Mark (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1985), app. 4Google Scholar.

44 Josephus, c:Ap. 2.280, 282, 286, 293Google Scholar.

45 Derrett, , Studies, 5.196–224Google Scholar.