Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:54:38.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paulus Oecumenicus: Interculturality in the Shaping of Paul's Theology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Andrie Du Toit
Andrie Du Toit
Affiliation:
New Testament Research Unit, University of Pretoria, P O Box 92345, Mooikloof, 0059 Pretoria, South Africa email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growing recognition that Judaism and Hellenism were not mutually exclusive suggests that Paul should be studied from a point beyond the Judaism/Hellenism divide. After attending to the apostle's own multiculturality, the relevance and implications of the ‘beyond’ position are assessed by means of an enquiry into Paul's use of charis and ecclesia. In both instances, intercultural convergence is indicated. However, the farewell to a dichotomous point of departure does not imply the denial of all distinctiveness. Studying the biblical documents from the ‘beyond’ position opens up new vistas and holds great promise for future NT research.

Keywords

Paulinterculturalitypresuppositionsgracechurch
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 121 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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 The prominent scholar H. D. Betz (‘Hellenism’, ABD III 129) called emerging Christianity ‘the intellectual and spiritual battleground on which the confrontation between Judaism and Hellenism was fought with unprecedented intensity’.

2 Engberg-Pedersen, T., ‘Introduction’, Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Engberg-Pedersen, T.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 6–7Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Collins, J. J., ‘Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenization in Judea’, Hellenism in the Land of Israel (ed. Collins, J. J. and Sterling, G. E.; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2001) 38–61 (39)Google Scholar.

4 van Unnik, W. C., Tarsus or Jerusalem. The City of Paul's Youth (London: Epworth, 1962) 3–4Google Scholar.

5 See Toit, A. B. du, ‘A Tale of Two Cities: “Tarsus or Jerusalem” Revisited’, NTS 46 (2000) 375–402Google Scholar.

6 Jordaan, W. and Jordaan, J., People in Context (Johannesburg: Heinemann, 3rd ed. 1998) 635Google Scholar.

7 Jordaan and Jordaan, People in Context, 636 (my italics).

8 Cf. Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert, Paul the Missionary (CBET 34; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 252–6Google Scholar.

9 White, E. E., The Context of Human Discourse. A Configurational Criticism of Rhetoric (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1992) 216Google Scholar.

10 See, e.g., Stanley, C. D., ‘ “Neither Jew nor Greek”: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society’, JSNT 64 (1996) 101–24Google Scholar.

11 Brett, M. G., ‘Interpreting Ethnicity’, Ethnicity and the Bible (ed. Brett, M. G.; Biblical Interpretation Series 19; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996) 3–22 (9–15)Google Scholar.

12 See J. M. G. Barclay, ‘ “Neither Jew nor Greek”: Multiculturalism and the New Perspective on Paul’, in Ethnicity (ed. Brett), 197–214 (211–12).

13 ‘Grace’ is used here as a cover-term for a semantic domain which includes χάρις, ἔλεος and οἰκτιρμός with their cognates.

14 Wetter, G. P., Charis. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums (UNT 5; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913)Google Scholar.

15 Danker, F. W., Benefactor. Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982)Google Scholar.

16 Joubert, S. J., Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul's Collection (WUNT 2. Reihe 124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000)Google Scholar; ‘CHARIS in Paul: An Investigation into the Apostle's Performative Application of the Language of Grace within the Framework of his Theological Reflection on the Event/Process of Salvation’, Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology (ed. J. G. van der Watt; NovTSup 121; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005) 187–211.

17 Harrison, J. R., Paul's Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context (WUNT 2. Reihe 172; Mohr Siebeck, 2003)Google Scholar.

18 But cf. Gerhard, G. A., ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes I’, Philologus 64 (1905) 27–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Inter alia White, J. L., ‘New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography’, ANRW II 25/2, 1730–56 (1740)Google Scholar; Klauck, H.-J., Ancient Letters and the New Testament. A Guide to Context and Exegesis (English version, with revisions and additions, of Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament [UTB 2022]) (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2006) 18–20, 361Google Scholar.

20 Paul loved such acoustic effects. Cf. BDF §488. More fundamentally, he would have wanted to replace an epistolary cliché with something meaningful.

21 Berger, K., ‘Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede. Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe’, ZNW 65 (1974) 191–231 (191–207)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klauck, Ancient Letters, 361.

22 For the peace-greeting in Semitic and Jewish letters, see inter alia Lohmeyer, E., ‘Probleme Paulinischer Theologie’, ZNW 26 (1927) 158–73 (158–64)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography’, JBL 93 (1974) 201–25 (214–16)Google Scholar; C. Breytenbach, ‘ “Charis” and “eleos” in Paul's letter to the Romans’ (Seminar paper presented at the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense 2007; to be published in BETL; used with consent of the author) 1–22 (19–20).

23 This was, in essence, the position of Lohmeyer, ‘Probleme’, 158–64; recently taken up by Breytenbach, ‘Charis’, 19–22.

24 For Paul, God's grace was much more than a mere positive attitude. It was benevolence in action. Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998) 322Google Scholar.

25 Ἔλεος/ἐλεέω/ἐλεάω/ἐλεήμων and οἰκτιρμός/οἰκτείρω/οἰκτίρμων were ‘twin’ concepts. Their concatenation served to strengthen the impact of a statement: LXX Exod 33.19; 4 Kings 13.23; Ps 24.6; 39.11 etc.

26 Louw, J. P. and Nida, E., Greek–English Lexikon of the New Testament based in Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) 1.751Google Scholar.

27 Where χάρις appears 345 times and ἔλεος only 48 times.

28 In Paul's undisputed letters, χάρις, χαρίζομαι and χάρισμα, with God as subject, appear at least 71 times (some instances are equivocal) and ἔλεος and ἐλεέω/ἐλεάω, with God as subject, only ten times.

29 ‘Charis’, 6–8. But see also H. J. Stoebe, ‘חסד’, THAT II 601–4.

30 See Breytenbach, ‘Charis’, 6–8.

31 Harrison, Grace, 287.

32 Stoebe, ‘חסד’, 600–18.

33 The reciprocal potential of χάρις to verbalize both grace bestowed and grace returned (= thanks) was already cryptically formulated by Sophocles: ἡ χάρις χάριν φέροι Oed. Col. 779; χάρις χάριν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τίκτουσ' ἀεί Ajax 522.

34 See esp. Konstan, D., Pity Transformed (Classical Interfaces; London: Duckworth, 2001)Google Scholar. Cf. Apollonius' disdainful dictum, quoted by Cicero: ‘nothing dries more quickly than a tear’ (Inv. I 109).

35 Breytenbach, ‘Charis’, 6–16.

36 Already Bultmann, R., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 5. Aufl. 1965)Google Scholar 283 pointed to the salvation-historical connotations of ἔλεος in Rom 9–11 and 15.9.

37 Admittedly, there are a few exceptions: Rom 12.8; 1 Cor 7.25; 2 Cor 4.1 and Phil 2.27.

38 E.g. Dunn, Theology, 322–3; Harrison, Grace, passim.

39 Paul would agree with Graeco-Roman moralists who regarded gratitude as the first essential reaction within the reciprocal cycle: ‘He who receives a benefit with gratitude repays his first instalment’ (Seneca Ben. II 22). See also Mott, S. C., ‘The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence’, in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (FS M. Tenney; ed. G. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 60–72 (64)Google Scholar.

40 Professor Cilliers Breytenbach first drew my attention to this. Due to shared research interests, we have had several discussions on χάρις. I wish to thank him for sharing his stimulating insights with me.

41 F. Hauck, ‘περισσεύω κτλ.’, ThWNT VI, 58–60; Theobald, M., Die überströmende Gnade. Studien zu einem paulinischen Motivfeld (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1982) 92Google Scholar; de Boer, M. C., The Defeat of Death. Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (JSNTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988) 168–9Google Scholar. For the eschatological abundance motif, cf. Isa 25.6; 27.6; Amos 9.13; Ezek 49.7–12 and particularly 4 Ezra 8.52 (praeparata est habundantia).

42 Harrison, Grace, 227. But see also Danker, Benefactor, 347. Jewett, R., Romans. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 381Google Scholar, emphasizes the Jewish apocalyptic background of this passage, but also refers to the ‘excess of benefaction in the civic cult’.

43 Harrison, Grace, 227–33. See also Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Jerome Lectures, 16th series; Ann Abor: University of Michigan, 1992) esp. 167–238Google Scholar; Castriota, D., The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton: Princeton University, 1995) esp. 124–69Google Scholar.

44 Levick, B. M., ‘Nero's Quinquennium’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (ed. Deroux, C.; Collection Latomus 180; Brussels: Éditions Latomus, 1983) 3.211–25Google Scholar; Griffin, M., Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London: Batsford, 1984) 37–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 5th ed. 1914) xivGoogle Scholar. For the historical uncertainties surrounding this quinqennium, cf. Murray, O., ‘The “Quinqennium Neronis” and the Stoics’, Historia 14 (1965) 41–61Google Scholar; Levick, ‘Nero's Quinquennium’; Griffin, Nero, 37–8, 83–7.

46 For the importance of Christ's death within this context, see de Boer, Defeat, 168.

47 Graeco-Roman moralists tried to put benefaction theory and practice on a loftier level. In his De Beneficiis, Seneca wrote extensively on this. He criticized the do ut des approach and indicated that gift giving has its own intrinsic reward: ‘Otherwise it would have been, not a benefaction, but a bargaining’ (Ben. II 31.2). Cf. Joubert, Benefactor, 40–50; T. Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Gift-giving and God's Charis: Pierre Bourdieu, Seneca in De Beneficiis and Paul in Romans 1–8’ (Seminar Paper presented at the 2007 Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense; used with consent of the author) 4–7, 15–16.

48 Cf., e. g., Mott, ‘Power’, 67; Zeller, Charis bei Philon, 20–26; and esp. Harrison, Grace, 114–46, 192–209. Significantly, this critique came mainly from Hellenistic-Jewish writers and Graeco-Roman moralists.

49 Joubert, Benefactor, 136–7, 178–80.

50 In Hellenism, the beneficence of the gods usually took the form of concrete favours – cf. Joubert, ‘CHARIS in Paul’, 188. They did not provide for salvation beyond death, the mystery religions being the only exception – H. Dörrie, ‘Gnade A I-II’, RAC XI 331–3.

51 Mott, ‘Power’, 61; Zeller, Charis bei Philon, 14.

52 Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (HThKNT VI; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1977) 153Google Scholar, calls this grace ‘staunenswert…ohne jegliche Analogie’.

53 Cf. Konstan, Pity, 124 (also 105–16).

54 Zeller, Charis bei Philon, 133.

55 Cf. the repeated combination of δωρεά(ν) with χάρις to emphasize the unsolicited, free character of grace (Rom 3.24; 5.15, 17).

56 In his excellently documented article, Mott, ‘Power’, amply demonstrated how original donors, including the gods, were obligated to continue their generosity when fitting gratitude was bestowed (esp. 63–7).

57 Rom 5.1–11 and esp. vv. 6–8; 5.15–20; 8.32.

58 Hahn, F., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 2.480Google Scholar.

59 Peterson, E., Die Kirche (München: Beck, 1929) 14–15Google Scholar and nn. 18–19.

60 Rost, L., Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im Alten Testament (BWANT 4. Folge Heft 24; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938) esp. 154Google Scholar.

61 Rost, Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge, 155.

62 Berger, K., ‘Volksversammlung und Gemeinde Gottes. Zu den Anfängen der christlichen Verwendung von “ekklesia” ’, ZThK 73 (1976) 167–207Google Scholar (171–84, 186, 204, 206).

63 According to him the evidential basis for connecting the NT ἐκκλησία with Israel of the desert period is too small (‘Volksversammlung’, 185; cf. ‘Kirche II. Neues Testament’, TRE XVIII 214).

64 Schrage, W., ‘ “Ekklesia” und “Synagoge”. Zum Ursprung des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs’, ZThK 60 (1963) 178–202Google Scholar.

65 Occurring 25 times.

66 Paul uses ἐκκλησία 39 times as a group designation: Rom 16.1, 4, 5, 16, 23; 1 Cor 1.2; 4.17; 6.4; 7.17; 10.32; 11.16, 22; 12.28; 14.4, 5, 12, 23, [33]; 15.9; 16.12, 19 (bis); 2 Cor 1.1; 8.1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11.8, 28; 12.13; Gal 1.2, 13, 22; Phil 3.6; 4.15; 1 Thess 1.1; 2.14; Phlm 2. The bulk of these refer to local congregations (three of the latter to house churches: Rom 16.5; 1 Cor 16.19; Phlm 2).

67 I purposefully chose the LXX as point of departure since the choice for ἐκκλησία most likely originated within the pre-Pauline Greek-speaking Christian movement.

68 Josephus is not helpful in this regard. He uses ἐκκλησία 48 times, but ἐκκλησία κυρίου/θεοῦ is completely lacking. His ἐκκλησία is thoroughly Hellenized.

69 Or small variations: Deut 31.30; Josh 9.2–3; 3 Kings 8.14, 22, 55; 12.3 (A); 1 Chron 13.2, 4; 2 Chron 6.3 (bis) etc.

70 Thus ἐκκλησία κυρίου is the assembled λαὸς κυρίου; cf. Rost, Vorstufen, 13; O. Linton, ‘Kirche I. Bedeutungsgeschichtlich’, RAC IV 907–11.

71 Professor Elisha Qimron, co-editor of 4Q396 (see Qimron, E. & Strugnell, J., Qumran Cave 4 V [DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994]Google Scholar), also known as 4QMMTc – informed me that 4Q396 1–2i (line 40) may also have contained the phrase קהל אל. (There is a lacuna after בקהל.)

72 See Hossfeld, F.-L., ‘Gottesvolk als Versammlung’, in Unterwegs zur Kirche. Alttestamentliche Konzeptionen (ed. Schreiner, J.; QD 110; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1987) 130–1Google Scholar. Cf. also Judg 20.2.

73 As nowadays in ‘Assemblies of God’ the focus is not on the event of meeting but on a church.

74 H.-J. Fabry, ‘קהל qahal V’, ThWAT VI 1219–20.

75 ‘Volksversammlung’, 187, 188.

76 ‘Volksversammlung’, 190; cf. also K. Berger, ‘Kirche II. Neues Testament’, TRE XVIII 215. He even affirms that in 4QFlor 1, where Deuteronomy 23 is taken up once more, we have a group designation (‘Volksversammlung’, 189).

77 This inconsistency was also noticed by Merklein, H., ‘Die Ekklesia Gottes. Der Kirchenbegriff bei Paulus und in Jerusalem’, BZ 4 (1979) 48–70 (60–2)Google Scholar.

78 Cf. Middendorp, T., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1972)Google Scholar.

79 Middendorp, Stellung, 158.

80 Middendorp, Stellung, 62, 184. Avoidance of the Yahweh name also contributed to this (cf. Neh 13.1 and Qumran).

81 A twin concept to ἐκκλησία κυρίου, namely, πᾶσα ἐκκλησία (υἱῶν) Ἰσραήλ is used.

82 Cf. Middenddorp, Stellung, 140–55; Dahl, N. A., Das Volk Gottes. Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchenbewusstsein des Urchristentums (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2. Aufl. 1963) 63–4Google Scholar.

83 15.5; 21.17; 23.24; 24.2; 30.27 (33.18); 34 (31).11; 38.33; 39.10; 44.15; in 26.5 an ‘unruly multitude’.

84 Exodus references are: Dec. 32, 45; Her. 251; Post. 143. Direct or indirect references to Deuteronomy 23 are: Conf. 144 (bis); Deus 111; Ebr. 213 (bis); Leg. 3.8, 81(bis); Migr. 69; Mut. 204; Post. 177; Somn. 2.184, 187; Spec. 1.325; Virt. 108. Of these, five contain direct quotations from Deut 23: Conf. 144; Ebr. 213; Leg. 3.81; Post. 177; Somn. 2.184; cf. Virt. 106.

85 Notably Conf. 144 (bis); Deus 111; Ebr. 213 (bis); Leg. 3.81 (bis); Migr. 69; Mut. 204; Post. 177; Somn. 2.184, 187. Conceded by Berger, ‘Volksversammlung’, 189–90.

86 Berger, ‘Volksversammlung’, 190: ‘Der entscheidende Schritt ist damit getan.’

87 However, the argument that the Christian adoption of ἐκκλησία derived exclusively from apocalyptic Judaism as manifested in Qumran (K. Stendahl, ‘Kirche II. Im Urchristentum’, RGG 3 III 1298–9 and especially Roloff, J., Die Kirche im Neuen Testament [GNT 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993] 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; EWNT I 1000) atomizes a much longer tradition and has a very slender documentary basis.

88 W. Schrage showed how synagoge followed the same route: From an originally inclusive term, it became a local designation – ‘Ekklesia’, 193, 195; ‘συναγωγή’, ThWNT VII 805–7.

89 For the same process in Qumran, cf. Müller, ‘qahal’, 618. Braun, H., Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966) 2.146–9Google Scholar, compares the two processes.

90 Cf. Kümmel, W. G., Kirchenbegriff und Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Urgemeinde und bei Jesus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2. Aufl. 1968) 16–9Google Scholar; W. Schenk, ‘Die ältesten Selbstverständnisse christlicher Gruppen im ersten Jahrhundert’, ANRW II 2/2, 1357–467; Roloff, Kirche, 82–3.

91 These in-group designations should be distinguished from derogatory nicknames originating from opposition groups and which were in certain instances appropriated as honorific.

92 In 1QM 4.10 ‘assembly of God’ is one of several prestigious and inspiring insignia on the war banners of the community.

93 Pace, inter alia, Dahl, Volk Gottes, 267–76; Merklein, ‘Ekklesia Gottes’, 62–63; Dunn, Theology, 537–43; Hahn, Theologie, II 480–1; Söding, T., ‘Ekklesia und Koinonia. Grundbegriffe paulinischer Ekklesiologie’, Catholica 2 (2003) 111–12Google Scholar.

94 This agrees with the NT tendency to replace kyrios, in referring to God, by theos. Whereas in the LXX the ratio of kyrios to theos is roughly 2:1, it is in the NT (excluding quotations) roughly 1:40.

95 See Schrage ‘Ekklesia’, 189–94.

96 Roloff's statement (Kirche, 83 n. 67) that the LXX preferred to translate qahal with synagoge is incorrect. Ἐκκλησία translated קהל 69 times and συναγωγή only 35 times – cf. HRCS s.v.

97 His argument was that the ‘Hellenists’ could not identify with the centrality of the law in the synagogue.

98 Cf. K. L. Schmidt, ‘καλέω κτλ.’, ThWNT III, 519–20; Campbell, ‘Origin’, 131; Schrage, ‘Ekklesia’, 198; Hengel, M., ‘Zwischen Jesus und Paulus’, ZThK 72 (1975) 201Google Scholar. For the theological position of the ‘Hellenists’, see Schrage, ‘Ekklesia’, 196–200; H. Räisänen, ‘Die “Hellenisten” der Urgemeinde’, ANRW II 26.2 1502–3.

99 It is scarcely by accident that the only NT reference to a Christian synagogue occurs in James 2.2.

100 It cannot be absolutely ruled out that, similar to Qumran, already the Aramaic-speaking church may have called itself the קהלא/קהל אל, but this is less likely.

101 The self-evident way in which Paul applied this term to local congregations indicates that he inherited it.

102 Recently Wolter, M., ‘Von der Entmachtung des Buchstabens durch seine Attribute’, Sprachgewinn. Festschrift für Günter Bader (ed. Assel, H. and Askani, H.-C.; Arbeiten zur Historischen und Systematischen Theologie 11; Münster: Lit-Verlag, 2008) 149–61 (155–60)Google Scholar, drew attention to the far-reaching semantic implications of this genitive in Paul. I would like to thank him for his thought-provoking insights which he kindly shared with me.

103 1 Cor 1.2; 10.32; 11.16, 22; 15.9; 2 Cor 1.1; Gal 1.13; 1 Thess 2.14; cf also Acts 20.28.

104 Of the 39 instances of ἐκκλησία as a Christian self-designation (cf. n. 66), at least 31 refer to local congregations.

105 Hainz, J., Ekklesia. Strukturen paulinischer Gemeinde-Theologie und Gemeinde-Ordnung (BU 9; Regensburg: Pustet, 1972) 233–4Google Scholar, influenced by Holl, argued that ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ in Gal 1.13 was a technical term for the mother church. However, Paul's specification that the congregations in Judea (1.22–23) were in fact the object of his persecution, makes this problematic.

106 Bultmann, Theologie, 96; also Hahn, F., ‘Die Einheit der Kirche nach dem Zeugnis des Apostels Paulus’, Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments: Für Karl Kertelge (ed. Kampling, R. and Söding, T.; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1996) 288–300 (288)Google Scholar, and Dunn, Theology, 540.

107 Cf. the moving eucharistic prayers in Did. 9.4; 10.5.

108 Wolter, ‘Entmachtung’, 158, aptly describes it as a ‘semantische Neubestimmung des Israel-Begriffs’.

109 Thus in particular Hahn, ‘Einheit’, 289, and Theologie, 1.275, 2.480–1.

110 Additional note: This may eventually result in a new Kittel.