^{page 67 note 1} Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes’, ZNW 77 (1986) 180–93, esp. 181–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} This is the position which Stuhlmacher himself favours; his predecessors include Minear, P. S. (The Obedience of Faith [Naperville, Illinois: Allenson, 1971]Google Scholar) and Donfried, K. P. in two articles reprinted in The Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977)Google Scholar: ‘A Short Note on Romans 16’ (50–60) and ‘False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans’ (120–48).

^{page 67 note 3} Jervell, J., ‘The Letter to Jerusalem’, in The Romans Debate, 61–74Google Scholar; similarly Bassler, J. M., Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBLDS 59; Atlanta: Scholars, 1982) 166–70.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 4} The phrase ‘convergence of motivations’ is taken from Beker, J. C., Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 71–4Google Scholar; cf. Williams, S. K. (‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans’, JBL 99 [1980] 245–55)Google Scholar, who speaks of ‘multiple motivations’, and Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer (EKK 6; 3 vols.; BenzigerfNeukirchener, 1978–1982) 1. 71–8.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 5} Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Abfassungszweck’, 185Google Scholar; citing Donfried, K. P., ‘False Presuppositions’, 122–3.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 1} Minear, P. S., Obedience, 1–35.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} It should come as no surprise that the Christian community in Jerusalem was overwhelmingly Jewish, since Jerusalem was a Jewish city. In Acts, non-Jews are first converted to Christianity when the movement begins to branch out beyond Jerusalem (8. 4–6; 11. 19–20), and there is no reason to doubt Acts' basic accuracy here; cf. Brown, R. E., ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity, but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity’, CBQ 45 (1983) 75.Google Scholar On the mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, see Minear, P. S., Obedience, 1–35Google Scholar; Wiefel, W., ‘The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity’, in The Romans Debate, 100–19, esp. 109–13Google Scholar; Don-fried, K. P., ‘False Presuppositions’, 123–6.Google Scholar Cf. the conclusion of Sanders, E. P. (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 183)Google Scholar: ‘Scholars universally and doubt-less correctly conclude that Rome was a mixed church.’

^{page 68 note 3} The equation of ‘Gentiles’ with Gentile Christians and of ‘Jews’ with Jewish Christians in 15. 7–13 is obvious from the context; the whole is prefaced by the exhortation, ‘Welcome one another’, and this imperative, like the whole letter, is addressed of course to Christians.

^{page 68 note 4} See Bassler, J. M. (Divine Impartiality, 267 n. 129)Google Scholar, who notes that most scholars see behind the weak some form of Jewish piety. ‘This interpretation is certainly encouraged by the way Paul moves from parenesis concerning the mutual acceptance of weak and strong to a paradigmatic description of Christ's service to both Jews and Gentiles (15. 7–12).’ Cf. Wilckens, U., Römer, 3.113.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 5} The only comparable Pauline usage of ήμέρα in the plural is Gal 4. 10, where the reference is to the sabbath and other Jewish holidays (see Mussner, F., Der Galaterbrief [HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974] 298–301).Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} Wilckens, U., Römer, 3. 111–15.Google Scholar Wilckens is probably right that the ‘weak’ would have included Gentiles who had taken on some aspects of Jewish Law-observance, and the ‘strong’ would have included Jewish Christians who felt themselves to be freed from the Law by the advent of the Messiah; cf. R. E. Brown for a more detailed analysis of the short-comings of an unnuanced distinction between ‘Jewish Christianity’ and ‘Gentile Christianity’ (‘Not Jewish Christianity’, 74–9, and Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity [with Meier, J. P.; New York: Paulist, 1983] 1–9Google Scholar). As a generalization, however, the correspondence of ‘the weak’ in Romans with Jews and of ‘the strong’ with Gentiles holds, as is shown by the linkage of 15. 1–6 and 15. 7–13.

^{page 69 note 2} P. S. Minear (Obedience), however, probably goes too far in seeing an almost point-by-point correlation between each verse in the letter and the Roman situation; see the judicious criticism of Donfried, K. P., ‘False Presuppositions’, 126.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} As noted by Sanders, E. P., Law, 182–3.Google Scholar We should probably, therefore, think of the Roman community as containing a Gentile Christian majority and a Jewish Christian minority; see below, n. 3, page 72.

^{page 70 note 1} Manson, T. W., ‘St. Paul's Letter to the Romans – and Others’, Romans Debate, 1–16 (orig. 1938).Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} In 1970 K. P. Donfried wrote of ‘a growing consensus, especially among continental NT scholars, that Romans 16 was not an original part of Paul's letter to Rome’ (‘Short Note’, 50).

^{page 70 note 3} Gamble, H. Y., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (SD 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977)Google Scholar; see further Wilckens, U., Römer, 1.22–9Google Scholar, and Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Abfassungszweck’, 184.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 4} Brown, R. E., Antioch and Rome, 106–7.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 5} Karris, R. J., ‘The Occasion of Romans’, in The Romans Debate, 75–99, esp. 86–8Google Scholar; cf. Bassler, J. M., Divine Impartiality, 162–4.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} The ‘weak’ in Corinth, though not born Jews (1 Cor 8. 7), had probably been influenced by local or travelling Jews in their scrupulosity about eating food sacrificed to idols (see Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968] 188Google Scholar; idem, ‘Things Sacrificed to Idols’, NTS 11 [1965] 138–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar). For the history of research on the identity of the ‘weak’ in Corinth, see Willis, W. L., Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS 68; Chico: Scholars, 1985), esp. 92–6.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} Karris is aware of this difficulty (‘Occasion’, 89–90), but his reply is scarcely convincing: The ‘days’ are fast days, and ‘vegetables’ covers all cases of abstinence from food. In the latter assertion it is Karris, not Paul, who is generalizing! As for the mention of ‘days’, see above, n. 5, page 68. Even if Karris is right, however, and the ‘days’ are fast days, this is no argument against a Jewish background; see Wilckens, U., Römer, 3.83.Google Scholar For a detailed debate with Karris, see Donfried, , ‘False Presuppositions’, 127–32.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Cf. Donfried, K. P., ‘False Presuppositions’, 129Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Römer, 3.115.Google Scholar On Paul's knowledge of the situation at Rome, see Stuhlmacher, P. (‘Abfassungszweck’, 188)Google Scholar, who points out that under good sailing conditions mail took only seven or eight days to get from Rome to Corinth, where Romans may have been written.

^{page 71 note 4} In 14. 21 ‘the strong’ are exhorted ‘not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble’. Abstention from wine, however, is not necessarily implied here. As R. J. Karris himself points out (‘Occasion’, 80 and n. 27, summarizing the work of M. Rauer), the reference to abstaining from wine flows stylistically from the expression ‘eating and drinking’ in 14. 17, and abstention from wine is not mentioned in the programmatic 14. 2. Wilckens, U. (Römer, 3.110)Google Scholar offers a paraphrase of 14. 21: ‘It is good not to eat meat – or to drink wine or in general to do anything that could give offense to my brother.’ Cf. Cranfield, C. E. B., Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–9) 2.696.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 5} Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 310–11.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} See Wilckens, U., Römer, 3.111, 114.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} See the famous statement by Suetonius (Life of Claudius 25): Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit, on which cf. Kümmel, W. G., Introduction, 307–9Google Scholar; Wiefel, W., ‘Jewish Community’, esp. 109–10Google Scholar; Smallwood, M. E., Jews, 210–16Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., Antioch and Rome, 100–2.Google Scholar Even if Smallwood and Brown are right that not all Jews but only the most vocal ones were expelled at this time, Suetonius' statement still reveals a considerable amount of tension between Christian and non-Christian Jews.

^{page 72 note 3} Contra W. G. Kümmel's curt dismissal of Bartsch (Introduction, 311 n. 13); cf. Cranfield, C. E. B., Romans, 2.695.Google Scholar An inability to obtain kosher meat is especially likely if the Law-observant Jewish Christians constituted a significant but rather small party within the body of Christians in Rome at the time Romans was written, as seems to be indicated by Paul's addressing the letter to Gentiles (1. 5, 13; the term ‘Gentile’ in Romans indicates not only an ethnic status but also an attitude toward the Law; see again the transition between 15. 1–6 and 15. 7–13). This primary address to Law-free Gentile Christians is borne out by 14. 1–15. 6, where the primary address is to the ‘strong’, and it creates problems for the theory of Brown, R. E. (Antioch and Rome, 110–122)Google Scholar that the predominant Christianity in Rome was a moderately conservative Jewish/Gentile Christianity sympathetic to the position of Peter and James in Jerusalem.

^{page 72 note 4} See Schoeps, H. J., Theologie and Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 1949) 188–96Google Scholar, and Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 199–201.Google Scholar According to some Jewish traditions based on Gen 9. 1–7, Adam and the other antediluvians were vegetarians (Schoeps, Theologie, 190 and Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–38]Google Scholar 1.166–7; 5.189–90 n. 56). The vegetarianism of ‘the weak’ might thus reflect a conviction of the dawning of the messianic age, on the principle that Endzeit repeats Urzeit.

^{page 73 note 1} English translation altered from Whittaker, M., Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, no. 6; New York: Cambridge University, 1984) 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the Latin text is given by Smallwood, M. E., ‘Some notes on the Jews under Tiberius’, Latomus 15 (1956) 320.Google Scholar On the translation of moveo as ‘to expell’ see Lewis, C. T. and Short, C., A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975; orig. 1879) 1169.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} Smallwood, M. E., ‘Notes’, 314–29Google Scholar; see also her discussion in The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 202–5.Google Scholar On Tiberius' expulsion of the Jews see Josephus, , Ant. 18.65–84Google Scholar; Tacitus, , Annals 2.85.5Google Scholar; Suetonius, , Tiberius 36.1.Google Scholar Smallwood notes that the Isis-cult was also expelled at this time, and its members, like the Jews, abstained from pork; ‘but in an allusive sentence written some forty years later, the one cult will be Judaism, on which the more memorable and extensive penalties were laid’ (ibid., 205 n. 12; cf. ‘Notes’, 320 n. 2). In his thorough study of ancient vegetarianism as it relates to Romans 14–15, M. Rauer mentions Seneca's vegetarianism (Die Schwachen in Korinth and Rom nach der Paulusbriefen [BibS (F) 21; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1923] 139–40, 149 n. 5, 152)Google Scholar, but he does not link Seneca's renunciation of it to his fear of being taken as a Jew.

^{page 73 note 3} For a convenient collection of Gentile reactions to Jewish food laws, see Whittaker, M., Jews and Christians, 73–80Google Scholar; original Greek and Latin texts of these passages can be found in Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols; Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974–84).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Stählin, G., ‘'Ασθενής’, TDNT 1 (1961; orig. 1933) 492Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Römer, 3.111.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Cranfield, C. E. B., Roman's, 1.171–3Google Scholar; cf. BAG, 33 and 652–3. I have supplied the NT examples.

^{page 74 note 3} Cf. y. Meg. 1.72b bot.; Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols. in 1; New York: Judaica, 1982) 774. Μîlâ is the translation for περιτομή in F. Delitzsch's Hebrew rendering of the NT.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 4} As acknowledged by both Billerbeck (S-B 4.1.30) and the Soncino translators, who translate mîlâ here by ‘Beschneidungsstelle’ and ‘the corona of the membrum’ respectively.

^{page 75 note 1} The closest I have found is Exod. Rab. 23: ‘Our circumcision witnesses for us that we are pure.’ Here, however, the meaning ‘circumcised penis’ is equally possible. The overwhelmingly predominant meaning of mîlâ in rabbinic literature is ‘the act of circumcision’; see e.g. the strings of references in m. Sabb. 19.1–6; m. Ned. 3.11; Yeb. 70a–72b, as well as the passages excerpted in S-B 4.1.23–40.

^{page 75 note 2} On ‘orlâ’ see below, page 76.

^{page 75 note 3} Rom 2. 28 refers not to the state of circumcision but to the act of circumcising; cf. John 7. 22; Acts 7. 8; Rom 4. 11–12 (‘sign of circumcision’, ‘father of circumcision’); Gal 5. 11; Phil 3. 5.

^{page 75 note 4} The entire phrase οί έκ περιτομς refers to a group of people or even a party (see Ellis, E. E., ‘The Circumcision Party and the Early Christian Mission’, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978; orig. 19681 116–28, esp. 116–17).Google Scholar However, περιτομή itself within the phrase means ‘act of circumcising’, and thus these instances do not belong with those discussed in the following paragraph, in which περιτομή itself refers to a group of people.

^{page 76 note 1} Wilckens, U., Römer, 1.155 n. 398.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} S-B, 3.119.

^{page 76 note 3} In their comments on Rom 2. 26, Dodd, C. H. (Romans [MNTC; New York: Harper, 1933] 27)Google Scholar and Barrett, C. K. (The Epistle to the Romans [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1957] 58)Google Scholar simply translate άκροβυστία without comment as ‘the uncircumcised’ and ‘an uncircumcised man’ respectively. Similarly, in commenting on Eph 2. 11, Gnilka, J. (Der Epheserbrief [HTKNT 10/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1971] 133–4)Google Scholar and Barth, M. (Ephesians [2 vols.; AB 34; New York: Doubleday, 1974] 1.255) claim that it is Jewish or rabbinical custom to refer to Jews and Gentiles as ‘the circumcision’ and ‘the uncircumcision’. Both Gnilka and Barth cite S-B 2.705 in this regard, but Billerbeck here gives no Jewish parallels for περιτομή and only one parallel for άκροβυστία, on which see below.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 4} Even the passage in Ned. 3.11 goes on to make the meaning of 'orlâ clear by citing Jeremiah 9. 26, which uses the adjective 'ārēl Shaye Cohen Jewish Theological Seminary has confirmed to me in conversation that the usual rabbinic term for ‘uncircumcised person’ is 'ārēl.

^{page 76 note 5} See Kohler, K., ‘Circumcision’, Jewish Encyclopedia (1903) 4.92–96Google Scholar; Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols.; New York: Schocken, 1971; orig. 1927–30) 2.17–18Google Scholar; McEleney, N. J., ‘Conversion, Circumcision and the Law’, NTS 20 (1974) 319–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Circumcision is so highly regarded that it is not only called the sign of the covenant (Gen 17. 11) but also the covenant itself (Gen 17. 13); see the common rabbinic name for it, ‘the covenant of our father Abraham’ (brytw šl 'brhm 'bynw) Burton Visotzky of Jewish Theological Seminary has suggested to me in conversation that the later rabbinic term běnê běrît (‘sons of the covenant’) may refer to circumcised persons and be a parallel to the NT expresion of οί έκ περιτομς (see above, page 75).

^{page 76 note 6} Jastrow, M. (Dictionary, 774)Google Scholar, in his entry for mîlâ lists no instance where mîlâ means a circumcised person or persons, nor have my own investigations turned up any such instances. If such a usage does occur, it is extremely rare.

^{page 77 note 1} It might be better to translate περιτομή literally as ‘circumcised penis’ in these pars-pro-toto instances where it indicates circumcised people. However, since such a translation is often stylistically awkward, the translation ‘circumcision’ will usually be employed in what follows.

^{page 77 note 2} McEleney, N. J. (‘Conversion’, 339)Google Scholar plausibly speculates that the reference to ‘the blood of Christ’ in Eph 2. 13 puns on Jewish terminology designating the blood shed at circumcision as ‘the blood of the covenant’. Jesus shed his ‘blood of the covenant’ twice, at his circumcision and at his death; Gentiles who participate in the latter are vicariously circumcised (cf. Col 2. 11–14).

^{page 77 note 3} Barth, M. (Ephesians, 1.254)Google Scholar refers to ‘the spiteful designation of Gentiles by the term “The Uncircumcision” … Paul alludes to name-calling or to a nickname …’.

^{page 77 note 4} See Moore, G. F., Judaism, 2.17.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 5} E.g. m. Ned. 3.11; Mek. on Exod 18.3; Gen. rab. 80; Pirque R. El. 29.

^{page 77 note 6} Schmidt, K. L., ‘'Ακροβυστία’, TDNT 1 (1963; orig. 1933) 225–6.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 1} I have culled the following examples from Berney, L. V. and van den Bark, M., The American Thesaurus of Slang with Supplement: A Complete Reference of Colloquial Speech (New York: Crowell, 1947) 358–61Google Scholar, and Green, J., The Slang Thesaurus (London: Elm Tree, 1986) 112–13.Google Scholar Asian = slant-eye; German = squarehead; Jew = hooknose; Mexican = greaser; Negro = thicklips, woolly head.

^{page 78 note 2} Several examples of slang terms for the penis, used as insulting names for persons, can be found in J. Green's Slang Thesaurus under the categories ‘Terms of Disparagemenr’ (§395; p. 115) and ‘Unintellectual; Stupid’ (§431, p. 121).

^{page 78 note 3} For a collection of passages, see Whittaker, M., Jews and Christians, 80–5Google Scholar and compare the comment on 13; original Greek and Latin in Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Special Laws 1.2–3; LCL trans. by F. H. Colson.

^{page 79 note 2} See Smallwood, M. E. (Jews, 429)Google Scholar on Hadrian's proscription of circumcision as castration.

^{page 79 note 3} See Betz, H. D., Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 270 and n. 169.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 4} See Ginzberg, L., Legends, 6.24 n. 141Google Scholar: ‘In the legend Amalek's sneering at the Abrahamic covenant characterizes the attitude of Romans (especially during the Hadrianic persecutions) towards this very important ceremony …’

^{page 79 note 5} Translation altered from Braude, W. G. and Kaplan, I. J., Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975).Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 6} The use of περιτομή as an insult is perhaps vaguely supported by the fact that Rom 2. 25–27, in which περιτομή is used in the pars-pro-toto manner, is immediately preceded by the citation of Isa 52. 5 in Rom 2. 24, which speaks of the name of God being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of the Jews.

^{page 79 note 7} See Rom 14. 1–15. 13; ‘causing a brother to stumble’ by what one eats is most likely to become a problem if there is a chance one will have to eat with the brother.

^{page 80 note 1} An example from American church history would be the term ‘Quaker’, which began as a derogatory term by outsiders but was soon adopted generally even by the Friends them-selves. In George Fox's words: ‘Quaking and trembling we own, though they in scorn call us so.’ The name was first given to the sect by a hostile judge, Gervase Bennett, because its members trembled when they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, in another place Fox interprets Bennett's naming in a positive light, saying that Bennett had given them the name because Fox had bidden them tremble at the name of the Lord. See Braithwaite, W. C., The Beginnings of Quakerism (Cambridge: University Press, 1955) 57.Google Scholar

In sociological terms, the proud adoption of outsiders' epithets is the flaunting of a stigma; cf. Coffman, E., Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963), esp. 112–14.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 2} See Mattingly, H. B., ‘The Origin of the Name Christian’, JTS N.S. 9 (1958) 26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karpp, H., ‘Christianos’, RAC 2 (1954) 1131–8Google Scholar, esp. 1133; contra Bickerman, E. J. (‘The Name of Christians’, HTR 42 [1949] 108–24)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who thinks that Χριστιανός began as a self-designation. Karpp rightly objects that in such a case the rare usage of the term before the mid-second century is incomprehensible.

^{page 80 note 3} Perhaps περιτομή began as the slogan of the Law-observant Jewish Christians, then became a term of abuse for them on the part of Gentile Christians, and finally was reclaimed by the Jewish Christians as a self-designation.

Unlike περιτομή, άκροβυστία, never lost its nuance of insult; this may help explain why Paul avoids completing the parallelism in Rom 15. 8; Gal 2. 9.

^{page 81 note 1} Translation altered from Soncino version.

^{page 81 note 2} See above, nn. 3, page 69 and 3, page 72.