Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:08:01.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Debtors to the Spirit’ in Romans 8.12? Reasons for the Silence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2012

Andrzej Gieniusz C.R.
Andrzej Gieniusz C.R.*
Affiliation:
Pontifical Urbaniana University, Via Urbano VIII, 16 – 00165 Rome, Italy. email: gieniusz@alice.it.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the Pauline anacoluthon in Romans 8.12. The usual interpretations consider it a communicative accident on the part of Paul or as a case of laudable laconicism. Against such an understanding the present author proposes to consider the anacoluthon as a figure of speech, deliberately chosen by the Apostle both to emphasize the total character of the filial relationship of Christians to God, as opposed to their past dependences, and to help them discover this particularity of their new status on their own.

Keywords

anacoluthondebtorSpiritsonship of Godmidwifery
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 61 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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 Ignatius of Antioch To the Philadelphians 1.1. The slight change to the accustomed translation of the last two words (‘those who say vain things’) is justified by the utilization of the expression in Hellenistic sources which indicate specifically ‘idle gossip’ and ‘chatter’, cf. A. Debrunner, ‘λέγω etc’., TDNT 4.76–7.

2 Respectively: μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα; οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι; οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς ϕόβον ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας; and οὐχ ἑκοῦσα ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα.

3 Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985) 393Google Scholar. In his Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986)Google Scholar the author speaks of the Apostle's forgetting to complete the proposition begun in v. 12, after interrupting himself to introduce the warning of v. 13.

4 Penna, R., Lettera ai Romani (Scritti delle origini cristiane 6/2; Bologna: EDB, 2006) 2.157Google Scholar.

5 Moo, D., The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996) 494Google Scholar.

6 This failure is spoken of expressly by Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 394, while for Deidun, T. J., New Covenant Morality in Paul (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981) 69Google Scholar, we are dealing only with imperfect syntax.

7 The opinion of Morris, L., The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984) 311Google Scholar.

8 See, for example, the opinion of J. A. Bengel who, referring to the missing part, says, ‘sed hoc eleganter subaudiendum relinquitur’ (Gnomon Novi Testamenti [London: Williams & Norgate, 1862] 529). A similar interpretation of the construction, even if without explicit appreciation of its elegance, one finds among the German commentators, according to whom the complement ‘but to the Spirit’ is left to be understood. E.g., Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (KEK 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 257–8Google Scholar and n. 1; Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (HThK 6; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1987) 249–50Google Scholar; Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963) 2.597Google Scholar.

9 Cf. Louwe, J. E. and Nida, J. A., Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Society, 1989)Google Scholar, where the root is treated under the entry ‘Necessary, Unnecessary’.

10 Cf. The Laws 818e (‘necessity grounded in nature constrains us, against which we say that no God contends, or ever will contend’).

11 Cf. the entry ‘Necessity. Must, Obligation’, NIDNTT 2.662–9.

12 Cf. F. Hauck ‘ὀϕείλω’, TDNT 5.559–66, especially 560.

13 See the frequently cited case of Socrates, who at the point of death reminded Kriton: ‘We still owe a rooster to Asclepius. Give it to him, do not forget’, τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ ὀϕείλομεν ἀλεκτρυόνα· ἀλλὰ ἀπόδοτε καὶ μὴ ἀμελήσητε (Plato Phaedo 118).

14 Cf. Lust, J., Eynikel, E. and Hauspie, K., A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: United Bible Society, 1996) 344Google Scholar.

15 Matt 6.12; 18.24; Luke 13.4; Rom 1.14; 8.12; 15.27; Gal 5.3. The noun is absent in Philo and in Josephus. However, it appears twice in intertestamental literature: The Testament of Job (11.12: ὀϕειλέτης μου) and the First Book of Enoch (6.3: ὀϕειλέτης ἁμαρτίας μεγάλης), with the sense of monetary debtor in the first case and a great sinner in the second.

16 Cf. M. Wolter, ‘ὀϕειλέτης, ὀϕείλημα’, EDNT 2.550, who lists only two meanings, whether for the first noun (‘debtor’ and ‘sinner’), or for the second (‘debt’ and ‘sin’).

17 Cf. Jastrow, M., The Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac, 1903) 428–9Google Scholar and Dalman, G. H., Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs 1930) 336–7Google Scholar.

18 On the subject of the general dispositio rhetorica of Rom 5–8 and, in detail, of Rom 8 see Gieniusz, A., Romans 8:18–30: ‘Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory’ (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999) 40–51Google Scholar and recently Aletti, J.-N., La Lettera ai Romani. Chiavi di lettura (Roma: Borla, 2011) 48, 81–5Google Scholar.

19 Cf. F. Hauck ‘ὀϕείλω’, TDNT 5.560–1, who notes that the Greek verb has a corresponding verb in Hebrew only in its meaning ‘to be in debt for an amount’.

20 So write E. Tiedke and H.-G. Link, ‘ὀϕείλω’, NIDNTT 2.667.

21 As the polytheistic Socrates was, on the contrary, able to do (cf. the text of Plato mentioned in n. 13).

22 See, for example, λαὸς περιούσιος (Exod 19.5; Deut 7.6; 14.2; 26.18; Titus 2.14), ἀπόδομα ἀποδεδομένοι (Num 8.16), μερὶς σου (Deut 9.26), λαὸς ἔγκληρος (Deut 4.20), κλῆρός σου (Deut 9.29), μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ (Deut 32.9), χρῆσις τῷ κυρίῳ (1 Sam 1.28), σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Ps 81.8), αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἡμεῖς λαὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρόβατα τῆς νομῆς αὐτοῦ (Ps 99.3), τὸν Ιακωβ ἐξελέξατο ἑαυτῷ ὁ κύριος Ισραηλ εἰς περιουσιασμὸν αὐτοῦ (Ps 134.4), λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (1 Pet 2.9), τὰ ἴδια (John 1.11).

23 Cf. Garavelli, B. Mortara, Manuale di retorica (Milano: Bompiani, 1991) 298–300Google Scholar.

24 Such a use can already be found in the writings of Epicurus (IV cent. B.C.): Epistula ad Pythoclem 95.4–5 (‘dwelling on what is inconsistent’, ἀναβλέπων εἰς τὰ ἀνακόλουθα as opposed to keeping in mind ‘consistent assumptions’, τὰς ἀκολούθους ὑποθέσεις). Cf. Liddell–Scott, 109.

25 ‘Now the genuine good things are faith, the connection and union (ἀκολουθία) of words with deeds, and the rule of right instruction, as on the other hand the evils are, faithlessness, a want of such connection (τὸ ἀνακόλουθον) between words and deeds, and ignorance’ (152). Translation of Yonge, C. D., The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 334Google Scholar.

26 Meditations 3.9.1–2.

27 The robots of Isaac Asimov's science fiction stories, with the clear intent of pointing out their subhuman status, speak in anacolutha (I, Robot [New York: Gnome, 1950]). The ungrammatical speeches of Pinocchio, the protagonist of Collodi's, C.The Adventures of Pinocchio (Florence: R. Bemporad & Figlio, 1883)Google Scholar, when he relates his own adventures to the kind Geppetto, have the same effect and not incidentally decrease with the growth or rather with the humanization of the protagonist, disappearing totally in Chapter XXXVI, where the puppet becomes human.

28 Ἔστι δὲ παρὰ τὰς προειρημένας ἑτέρα τις μέθοδος ἐνδιαθέτου λόγου καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ δοκοῦντος σὺν ὀργῇ προϊέναι, τὸ μηδὲ τὰς ἀκολουθίας σῴζειν τῶν τοῦ λόγου σχημάτων ἀλλ' οἷον ἐξίστασθαι δοκεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους […]διὸ καὶ μᾶλλον ἔμψυχος καὶ ἀληθὴς ὁ λόγος εἶναι δοκεῖ (from the critical edition by Rabe, H., Hermogenis opera [Stuttgart: Teubner, 1969] 357–8Google Scholar). The anacoluthon is treated by Hermogenes in the chapter dedicated to sincerity of discourse (περὶ ἀληθινοῦ λόγου). See also the comment of M. Patillon in regard to this text, in his monograph La théorie du discourse chez Hermogène le rhéteur. Essai sur la structure de la rhétorique ancienne (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1988) 132–3Google Scholar.

29 Mortara Garavelli, Manuale di retorica, 298–300.

30 Quintilian was already aware of this, as his treatment of the solecism in Institutio oratoria I, V, 51–3, shows.

31 Cf. Stacy, R. H., Defamiliarization in Language and Literature (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, 1977) 61Google Scholar.

32 So says Farrar, F. W., ‘The Rhetoric of St. Paul’, Expositor 10 (1879) 26Google Scholar: ‘I do not reckon anacoluthon, or unfinished construction, among St. Paul's figures of speech, because his numerous anacolutha are accidental, not rhetorical. They are due to his eagerly pressing forward with his subject… Perhaps the nearest approach to a rhetorical anacoluthon in St. Paul is Gal. ii. 6; 2 Thess. ii. 3, 7’.

33 The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT 2/42; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991)Google Scholar.

34 Nell'officina dei classici. Come lavoravano gli autori antichi (Frecce 45; Rome: Carocci, 2007)Google Scholar.

35 Lettera ai Romani, 2.157.

36 Of a contrary opinion is, for example, T. J. Deidun, who interprets vv. 12–14 as a ‘fraternal paraclesis’ and thus as the imperative which necessarily follows from the indicative of the proclamation of the newness of Christian existence in vv. 1–11 (New Covenant Morality in Paul, 78). The fact that in vv. 12–14 no imperative is found does not help the soundness of the proposal. In Rom 6.12–14, the classic place of the indicative-imperative sequence in Paul, besides three regular imperatives we also have a categorical imperative. To base oneself instead, as Deidun does, on the notion of a mandatory sense expressed in ὀϕειλέται of v. 12 is, in the light of our semantic analyses, without foundation: Paul denies only a type of submission (towards the flesh), but he holds back from proclaiming positively another type thereof. Other authors prefer to see there instead an implicit exhortation or, even more generally, an ethical application (cf. Pitta, A., Lettera ai Romani. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I Libri biblici. Nuovo Testamento 6; Milano: Paoline, 2001) 293Google Scholar.

37 Of the same opinion are Murray, J., The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968) 293Google Scholar; Schreiner, T. R., Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT 6; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998) 419Google Scholar; Légasse, S., L'épître aux Romains (LeDivCom 10; Paris: Cerf, 2002) 491Google Scholar.