Corpus-Paul

["Runar M. Thorsteinsson" <Runar.Thorsteinsson AT teol.lu.se>]

> As a tangent to the current thread on Romans 1-2, I'm wondering why recent
> translations of Rom 2.22 seem to have moved to a highly etymological
> translation
> in preferring "rob temples" to the older KJV (etc) "commit sacrilege"? Do we
> have much evidence of Jews/Judeans literally robbing temple treasuries or
> desecrating temple images and sites? LJS gives both meanings, as does BAGD
> (with
> an unexplained preference for the former). Ed Krentz did an article on this 
> in
> 1990, which I haven't read (or at least, don't recall the details of), but
> which
> presumably (judging from the BAGD listing) argues for the more idiomatic 
> "act
> irreverently" or the like. That also seems more likely to me, without having
> done much homework on the issue.
> 
> My question, amid all that rambling, is whether the claim that in Paul's 
> time
> there were reports or traditions about Jewish desecration of temples
> (presumably pagan) can be sustained. (Nevermind that the text might not be
> making such an actual claim; just run, for the sake of investigation, with 
> the
> assumption that it is actually calling some Judeans/Jews "temple-robbers" in
> some sense of the Greek term.)
> 
> Bob


Bob,

in his article, "The Name of God in Disrepute: Romans 2:17-29 [22-23]",
CurTM 17 (1990), Krentz actually suggests that hierosyleis in Rom 2.22b
should be taken literally. He bases this on a TLG search (from Plato to ca.
200 CE, excl. inscriptions and papyri).

Duncan Derrett has an interesting survey of the range of translations of Rom
2.22b in a 1994 NTS article. According to him, there are five "almost
contradictory translations" in circulation: 1) You rob (idols') temples; 2)
You are dishonest towards heathen temples; 3) You commit sacrilege; 4) You
are indifferent to the rights of God in general; 5) You desecrate holy
things in general. Derrett himself adds a sixth rendering: "You abominate
idols (as the written law requires); but do you never profit illegitimately
at the expense of an idol's wealth (which the law of conscience forbids)?"
(Obviously one has to read his article in order to fully appreciate this
rendering). 

Etienne Trocmé commented some twenty years ago that in Rom 2.22b Paul's
interlocutor is accused of committing "an act which our old translators
rendered as 'sacrilege' (hierosyleis) and which nowadays we do not really
know how to translate. (No great loss, perhaps, as we do not have the
slightest idea to what action it might refer.)"
I think that these words describe well the confusion among interpreters in
their attempts to make sense of Paul's choice of hierosylein as a charge
against Jews (or a Jew).

Regards,
Runar

-- 
Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Ph.D.

Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
Lund University, Sweden
http://www.teol.lu.se/nt/forskning/thorsteinsson.html