Romans. Craig S. Keener

19. Also of Paul’s (12:19; cf. 16:5, 8, 9, 12).

20. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–40; Cicero Inv. 1.15.20; idem De or. 1.31.143; idem Fam. 13.66.1; Statius Silvae 2.preface; Quintilian Inst. 4.1.5.

21. E.g., Demosthenes Epitaph. 1.1; Chariton Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.5; Josephus Life 365–66; Acts 15:23; Jas 1:1; Deissmann 1978: 150–204 passim; Kim 1972: 10–20, esp. 11.

22. Jewish letters in Greek sometimes combined chairein with “peace” (2 Macc 1:1); a Hebrew letter could combine “mercy” and “peace” in a greeting (2 Bar. 78:2–3). Paul is not the only early Christian writer to combine “grace” and “peace” (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clem. title; cf. Ign. Smyrn. 12.2).

23. If humanity in general can be charged with failing to thank God (1:21), the same charge can hardly be laid against Paul (6:17; 7:25; 16:4; and passim in his letters)! On thanksgivings, see Schubert 1939; esp. O’Brien 1977; cf. e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.41 (56).

24. Letter writers often expressed prayers (or wishes) for their recipients; e.g., P. Giess. 17.3–4; P. Lond. 42.2–4; P. Oxy. 1296.4–5; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.2.2; 5.25 (40). “Unceasingly” may involve greater frequency than daily prayer times, but might be hyperbolic (a common figure, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.33.44); “unceasing mention” seems to refer to times of feasts and sacrifices in 1 Macc 12:11.

25. For Jewish people calling God to witness, see e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.40, 46; T. Reu. 1:6; 6:9; among Gentiles, e.g., Homer Od. 1.273; 14.158; Xenophon Cyr. 4.6.10.

26. Letters often expressed a genuine desire to visit (Anderson 1999: 207); even more frequently, they expressed deep affection (Cicero Fam. 7.14.2; Pliny Ep. 3.3.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.3.1–5; 2.2.2; 3.9.1; 4.2.1) and longing (P. Oxy. 528.6–9; Cicero Fam. 1.9.1; 16.1.1; Att. 2.18; 12.3; Dio Chrysostom Ep. 3; Pliny the Younger Ep. 3.17.1–3; 6.4.2–5; 6.7.1–3; 7.5.1–2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.4; 2.10.3; 2.14; 3.9.2; 3.19; 4.5.3; 4.9). One might also explain reasons for one’s delay (CPJ 2:219, §431).

27. A common caveat (e.g., Xenophon Hell. 2.4.17; Anab. 7.3.43; Epictetus Disc. 1.1.17; Josephus Ant. 2.333; 7.373; 20.267).

28. Reciprocity was a conventional expectation (Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Statius Silvae 4.9; Herman 2003; Highet 2003; Harrison 2003: 1, 15, 40–43, 50–53), but Paul expresses it in terms expected for peers. For Paul, “spiritual” alludes to the Spirit (Fee 1994b: 28–31).

29. Ancient culture heavily emphasized obligation (cf. Rom 13:8; 15:1, 27), but the expression was not limited to money and was often used figuratively (Musonius Rufus 17, p. 110.2–3; Dio Chrysostom Or. 44.4; Pliny Ep. 7.19.10), including for a debt to a people (Cicero Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.28; Valerius Maximus 5.6. ext. 2).

30. On Greek disdain for barbarians’ lack of Greek education, see e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.2.6; Iamblichus V.P. 8.44.

31. E.g., Plato Alcib. 2.141C; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.14; 9.12; Diodorus Siculus 1.4.5–6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 3.11.10.

32. E.g., Cicero Inv. 1.24.35; Seneca Dial. 5.2.1; Josephus J.W. 5.17; idem Ant. 1.107. Some texts add Romans as a third category (Juvenal Sat. 10.138; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.24; as Greeks in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 7.70.5); most included Jews in the barbarian category (Strabo 16.2.38; Josephus J.W. 1.3; 4.45; but cf. Josephus Ant. 18.47).

33. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys. 17; Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; idem Quinct. 10.36; Quintilian Inst. 4.4.1–8; Pliny the Elder Nat. 8.1.1; 18.1.1; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.11; 38.5–6. Technically a “thesis” involved a hypothetical topic and a “hypothesis” a concrete one (Theon Progymn. 1.60 [cf. 2.91–104; 11.2–6, 240–43]; Hermogenes Progymn. 11, On Thesis 24–26; Anderson 2000: 63–65). Paul’s might resemble a philosophic thesis, though Stoics omitted these (Anderson 1999: 61, 241–42). Paul’s form may differ from conventional rhetorical expectations (cf. Elliott 1990: 62–63, 82–83, doubting that it is a thesis).

34. Moo 1996: 29, 32, 65; Jewett 2007: 135.

35. See especially Hays 1989: 36–38; idem 2005: 45, 94, 137, citing these texts, and noting the texts to which Paul appeals in Rom 9:27–33; 11:26–27; 15:7–13, 21.

36. Cf. similarly Apollinaris of Laodicea (Bray 1998: 29); John Chrysostom. Hom. Rom. 2.

37. Paul drew on Isa 28:16 lxx in two of these texts, and knew Isaiah’s broader expectation (Isa 45:17; 54:4; 65:13; 66:5; see more fully Hays 1989: 38–39). He may have also known Jesus’s saying in Mark 8:38 (cf. John 12:26).

38. E.g., Porter 1997: 579; cf. again John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 2; on litotes, Rowe 1997: 128.

39. So also Origen Comm. Rom. on 1:16 (in Bray 1998: 30).

40. Paul may speak of the gospel going next to Greeks possibly because Greeks (broadly defined, since Alexander) were the next ones to receive it; “Greeks” constituted the primary mission field of Paul’s day, at least in his cultural sphere.

41. Rajak 1995: 1, 11–13; cf. Josephus Ant. 19.278. This is often true of Luke as well (e.g., Acts 14:1; 16:3).

42. For ethnic conflicts between Jews and Greeks, see Stanley 1996.

43. Certainly appropriate in a thesis statement such as Rom 1:17; “justice” came to be viewed as a standard category of reasoning for developing a thesis (Hermogenes Progymn. 11, On Thesis 26).

44. “Justice” may depict an aspect of God’s nature as do God’s wrath (1:18) and God’s power (1:20). Elliott (2008: 76–77) finds in God’s justice a critique of human injustice, focusing on the empire.

45. God answering in righteousness (Ps 143:1) need not include judging, since no mortal could meet God’s standard (Ps 143:2).

46. Gen 38:26; cf. Job