Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: HILASTERION

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Stephen.Finlan" <Stephen.Finlan AT durham.ac.uk>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: HILASTERION
  • Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:55:06 +0000


Thanks, Daniel, for your thoughtful postings. I am writing a
PhD thesis at Durham now which involves looking at [h]ILASTHRION
(I think that's the Corpus Paulinum way of spelling).
I have a few quick responses to stimulate discussion.

First, while I appreciate your (and Hultgren's) distinction of
the verb from the noun, and I accept that a failure to make this
distinction has hampered previous interpretation, I think it is
necessary to note that there is some continuity of meaning. HILEOS
or "gracious," becomes [h]ILASKESQAI "make gracious," that is,
"propitiate," which leads to [h]ILASTHRION, or "place of
propitiation." -THRION signifying "place of," just as
THUSIASTHRION means "place of sacrifice."

At least these seem to be the etymological links. In actual
usage, other meanings become dominant. For instance, "expiation"
probably is the best translation of the dominant usage most
common in the LXX. And of course [h]ILASTHRION received the
very specific meaning of _kapporeth_ or (in Ezekiel) a ledge
that is part of an altar.

It is helpful to remember these links, because words, as
they are used in texts addressed to mixed audiences, often
have multiple resonances. A Jew reading Rom 3;25 would probably think
of the _kapporeth_ or Ezekiel's ledges, while a Gentile reader might
think of "place of propitiation" or of propitiatory gifts.

I do think the _kapporeth_ is intended, but we should also be ready
for Paul's subtlety, or his ability to use words that can be understood
in more than one way.
This is not to negate your argument. In fact, the rest of Romans 3
tends to support your argument, and again Hultgren has done the best
job of drawing this out: the texts cited earlier in Rom 3 were often
associated with Yom Kippur. And of course, sprinkling blood on the
_kapporeth_ is a Yom Kippur activity (Lev 16).


As regards supersession: I think we ought to just admit that early
Christianity IS supersessionist, although not in the same ways as later
Christianity, not in the sense of excluding Jews: not in the
sociological sense of rigid group boundaries. But if Jesus is now
the new mercy-seat, if love is the fulfillment of the law, if the
new revelation is greater than the old (2 Cor 3), if the promise to
Abraham is now being fulfilled, then the old ethnically-exclusive,
halakhically-defined Judaism IS superseded.... or rather, it has
come to maturation. Jews and Gentiles alike must now learn about
the Messiah, must learn the unveiled (new) way of interpreting
scriptural promises.

Steve Finlan, Durham




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page