debate in Romans must be recontextualized before it can be resolved.
The key issues are inaugurated by 1:17.
§ 2. Romans 1:17a & 3:22
In 1:17a Paul states that
. The meaning of the series
hasgreatly puzzled interpreters.
However, this well-known difficulty unfolds into aless well-known problem in 3:21-22 (which of course includes an important
genitive); consequently, two enigmatic textual features turn out
Galatians 3:26: Neglected Evidence for ‘Faith in Christ,’”
New Testament Studies
49 (2003): 433-39.And Keck’s comments on Rom. 3:26 are pertinent: cf. Leander Keck, "Jesus in Romans,"
Journal of Biblical Literature
108 (1989): 443-6.
So I am treating the
debate in a rather oblique way, but my differentangle of approach is arguably more sensitive to the actual shape of the data (and certainly as faras Romans 1–4 is concerned). Cf. also in this relation the suggestion of (i.a.) Hays, that progress inthe
debate can be made only as the larger shape of Paul’s argument issimultaneously introduced and assessed: cf. Richard B. Hays, "
and Pauline Christology:What Is at Stake?," in
Pauline Theology. Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On
, ed. David M. Hay,and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1997), 38-39;
Faith of Jesus Christ
edn; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), xxiv.
Most recently, see the suggestions of Charles Quarles, "From Faith to Faith: A FreshExamination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17,"
45 (2003): 1-21; and John W. Taylor, "From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom,"
50 (2004): 337-48. Moo notes the difficulties; cf.
The Epistle to the Romans
(NICNT; GrandRapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 76.