Paul’s Jewish Prophetic Critique of Jews in Romans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

"Paul's Jewish Prophetic Critique of Jews"

 

This paper offers a persuasive reading of Paul's rhetoric that is critical of the Jews in the Epistle to the Romans. Many scholars have wrestled with the logic of Paul's presentation in the first chapters of the letter, which begins with a rather standard critique of the idolatrous and sinful world of gentiles (Rom 1:18-32) and then shifts to a critique of the kind of Jewish judge who would offer such a critique (2:1-24). The author's general approach is to see the criticism of the Jewish judge to be a well attested inner Jewish critique of other Jews. The critic of gentile sin seems to be speaking from the perspective of Jewish wisdom traditions, well attested in the Second Temple period. The critique of that critique is speaking from the perspective of Jewish prophetic literature, which abounds in criticism of Israel's failings. This is a nice reading of the dynamics of the passage.

 

The author goes on to clarify other difficult passages, such as the beginning of chapter 3, by applying the same model, coupled with a careful analysis of the semantics and grammar of the text. He finally notes that the framework also helps to interpret chapters 9-11 where Paul laments the unbelief of his fellow Jews in his Gospel. God exercises clear and definitive judgment on Israel for not obeying Torah in order to stimulate Gentile belief and eventually Jewish acceptance of the Gospel.  The overall reading is quite persuasive, well documented with prophetic texts critical of Israel in various ways and the piece can be published, virtually as is.

 

I have a few relatively minor critical suggestions for a bit of rephrasing.

 

1. Lines 62-63: The author refers to the later chapters as a place where Paul expresses "his profound grief over his fellow Jews' salvation (9:1-3; 10:1)."  This is rather an odd way to describe Paul's grief which is about the Jewish rejection of the message of salvation, or perhaps his grief over the danger that they might not be saved.  Rethink the wording.

 

2. lines 83-84: "the existing hierocratic Herodian hegemony in Jerusalem". The alliteration is attractive, but the wording may need some rethinking. The prophetic critique in the second temple period began before Herod appeared and was no doubt a factor during Hasmonean times (another "h" word?). Also, after the deposition of Archelaus in 6 CE there was no doubt a hierocratic hegemony in Jerusalem and the Herodians were still around, but was the hegemony Herodian?

 

3. Line 266: The parenthesis (δι᾽ ὑμᾶς) might need a bit of clarification about how it refers to "the principle cause." Perhaps insert a translation, (δι᾽ ὑμᾶς: "It is because of you").

 

4. Lines 319-321: The author's construal of the sense of Rom 2:28-29 is persuasive, but I'm not sure that the reading of the grammar is correct. The enclitic accent does not necessarily make the noun Ἰουδαῖός by itself a predicate. The repetition of a pattern of articular phrases in this sentence suggests that they are all to be construed alike: "the public Jew," "the fleshly public circumcision," "the secret Jew," "the circumcision of a heart in Spirit not in letter." And there is no separate article with Ἰουδαῖός, as the author's translation reads. The predicate of the initial nominal sentence is thus the whole phrase, "the public Jew." The subject of this nominal sentence is the implied antecedent of the final relative clause in v 29.  The whole sentence could be translated, "It is not the public Jew, nor the fleshly public circumcision, but the secret Jew and the circumcision of a heart in Spirit not in letter that is the one whose is [or perhaps, more elegantly, "to whom belongs"] the praise, not from humans but from God." This sentence is a tad awkward in English, but that I suggest is what the grammar actually is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and I appreciate your kind comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Comments 1: Lines 62-63: The author refers to the later chapters as a place where Paul expresses "his profound grief over his fellow Jews' salvation (9:1-3; 10:1)."  This is rather an odd way to describe Paul's grief which is about the Jewish rejection of the message of salvation, or perhaps his grief over the danger that they might not be saved.  Rethink the wording.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the phrase to “his profound grief over the prospect that his fellow Jews might not be saved (9:1–3; 10:1)”. I have used “track changes” to indicate this revision, which can be found on page 2 line 63 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 2. lines 83-84: "the existing hierocratic Herodian hegemony in Jerusalem". The alliteration is attractive, but the wording may need some rethinking. The prophetic critique in the second temple period began before Herod appeared and was no doubt a factor during Hasmonean times (another "h" word?). Also, after the deposition of Archelaus in 6 CE there was no doubt a hierocratic hegemony in Jerusalem and the Herodians were still around, but was the hegemony Herodian?

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the phrase to “existing hegemonies in Jerusalem”. I have used “track changes” to indicate this revision, which can be found on page 2 line 85 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 3. Line 266: The parenthesis (δι᾽ ὑμᾶς) might need a bit of clarification about how it refers to "the principle cause." Perhaps insert a translation, (δι᾽ ὑμᾶς: "It is because of you").

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have inserted the suggested translation “it is because of you”. I have used “track changes” to indicate this revision, which can be found on page 6 line 271 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 4. Lines 319-321: The author's construal of the sense of Rom 2:28-29 is persuasive, but I'm not sure that the reading of the grammar is correct. The enclitic accent does not necessarily make the noun Ἰουδαῖός by itself a predicate. The repetition of a pattern of articular phrases in this sentence suggests that they are all to be construed alike: "the public Jew," "the fleshly public circumcision," "the secret Jew," "the circumcision of a heart in Spirit not in letter." And there is no separate article with Ἰουδαῖός, as the author's translation reads. The predicate of the initial nominal sentence is thus the whole phrase, "the public Jew." The subject of this nominal sentence is the implied antecedent of the final relative clause in v 29.  The whole sentence could be translated, "It is not the public Jew, nor the fleshly public circumcision, but the secret Jew and the circumcision of a heart in Spirit not in letter that is the one whose is [or perhaps, more elegantly, "to whom belongs"] the praise, not from humans but from God." This sentence is a tad awkward in English, but that I suggest is what the grammar actually is.

Response 4: Thank you for this solution. The solution certainly is elegant and I would otherwise be inclined to adopt it. However, I would like to respond that the solution does not entirely deal with the syntactical issues raised by Staples (2024, 165–66), cited in footnote 17, and that the addition of the separate article with Ἰουδαῖος is not problematic. Therefore I would like to request you as the reviewer to consider an alternative revision where I clarify and strengthen my argument. The following is a fuller explanation of the response and the request:

A) The suggested solution does not appear to deal with the objection raised by Staples (2024, 165–66), cited in footnote 17. I have copied out the text of Staples’ objection below. Staples argues on the basis of Wackernagel’s law (the “second-position rule for enclitics”) that the predicate must be Ἰουδαῖος by itself, and not the entire phrase ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖος. This is because in the latter case, the enclitic ἐστιν would not be in the second position.

B) I had attempted to deal with the objection that “there is no separate article with Ἰουδαῖός, as the author's translation reads” in footnote 18, where I state that this rendering “translates it as definite (‘the Jew [… whose is the praise]’) rather than indefinite (‘a Jew’), which is a viable option for an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative (BDF §273) (Blass and Debrunner 1961, 143; cf. Colwell 1933).” To explain further: Colwell’s 1933 article states: “a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article” (Colwell 1933, 20). Hence my insertion of the article in the translation based on contextual considerations is consistent with Colwell’s well-established grammatical rule.

C) My solution, therefore, takes Staples’ objection (A) seriously, while bringing in a further possibility that Staples does not consider, i.e., rendering the predicate nominative as “the Jew” rather than “a Jew” according to a well-established grammatical rule (B).

D) My request for an alternative revision is therefore as follows:

i) Clarify footnote 17 by adding the words in red (see revised article, tracked changes, page 7, footnote 17):

However, since ἐστιν (2:28) is enclitic, it must occur in the second position according to Wackernagel’s law, which means the first Ἰουδαῖος must be its predicate (Staples 2024, 165–66);

ii) Clarify footnote 18 by adding the words in red (see revised article, tracked changes, page 8, footnote 18):

This rendering (updating and correcting Windsor 2021, 245) recognizes that Ἰουδαῖος is the predicate of ἐστιν (so Staples 2024, 165–66) but implements a further possibility that Staples does not consider by translating the predicate as definite (“[the] Jew [… whose is the praise]”) rather than indefinite (“a Jew”). This is an entirely viable option for an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative (BDF §273) (Blass and Debrunner 1961, 143), as per Colwell’s rule: “a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article” (Colwell 1933, 20). Here, the discourse topic and the complexity of the syntax create a context in which a definite translation (“the Jew [… whose is the praise]”) is strongly suggested.

iii) Clarify the translation by adding square brackets to the article in front of “Jew” to more clearly indicate that the article is not in the Greek text but it is viable to add the article in this case (see revised article, tracked changes, page 7 line 324).

I would appreciate it if you would consider this alternative revision or reply with any further objections.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Note: the text of Staples’ objection (2024, 165–66) follows:

One recent proposal is that these verses should be rendered as follows: “For it is not the outward Jew, nor the outward circumcision in the flesh, but the hidden Jew, and the circumcision of the heart in spirit and not in letter, whose praise [is] not from humans but from God.” This translation, although initially attractive due to its economy (requiring fewer words added for sense) and how it integrates with the relative pronoun in 29b, is syntactically untenable. The problem is that the enclitic ἐστιν ("is") in 2:28 must occur in the second position of its unit, which marks loudaios as the predicate and establishes a grammatical break between loudaios and the preceding.{Footnote 73}

{Footnote 73: An enclitic is a word or particle that attaches itself (or "leans on") the preceding word and is then pronounced as though it were part of that preceding word. Enclitic attachment is prosodically determined, resulting in attachment to the first phonological word - that is, the first non-enclitic and non-proclitic that bears an accent - within an intonational phrase. In the case of Rom 2:28, ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ is one phonological word, while Ἰουδαῖος is another. The attachment of ἐστιν to the latter is what marks Ἰουδαῖος as the first word in its unit and therefore as the predicate. On the second-position rule for enclitics, see Ann Taylor, "A Prosodic Account of Clitic Position in Ancient Greek" (1996); Mark Janse, "The Prosodic Basis of Wackernagel's Law" (1993); David Goldstein, Classical Greek Syntax: Wackernagel's Law in Herodotus (2016), 52-53, 61-65; and the classic study of Jakob Wackernagel, "Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung" (1892).}

As such, regardless of how one construes the rest of the sentence, the syntax requires the rendering "... is a Jew" (or ". is Jewish") for the predicate. The alternative rendering, which treats "the outward Jew" as the subject in a cleft sentence, would require ἔστιν ("it is") at the beginning of the sentence, resulting in οὐ γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖος. As such, although this proposal renders the Greek words in an elegant sentence that makes sense in English, the way it combines those words significantly misrepresents the Greek syntax.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submission examines Paul's critique of the Jews in Romans 1-3 in close detail. It references relevant scholarship and draws upon primary and secondary texts. I like the way it sets up a conversation between competing views on the passage and how to read Paul's critique. This evokes a clear debate to which this submission makes a clear contribution. It is nuanced and balanced, while still providing a forceful argument. The structure suits the argument and keeps the reader oriented throughout. No requests for revisions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript; I appreciate your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The development of the article is consistent with the aims and hypotheses, and the conclusions are precise.

The paper is well structured and very clear to read. The citations and references are relevant and very well commented. The bibliography is updated

This interesting paper deals with the problematization of ethnic distinctiveness of the Jews, focusing on Romans 1–3. Unlike others papers, it consideres Paul’s prophetic critique of Jews in Romans as relevant to his gentile audience, because this critique is grounded in Jewish intramural prophetic. This paper provides a new perspective in the sense that this revelation of wrath is a precondition for the revelation of universal grace through Israel’s Davidic messiah, and at the same time, the revelation of wrath and grace to the nations is the basis for Paul’s eschatological hope for Israel and offers a universal witness of God’s wrath to the nations.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript; I appreciate your comments.