ὦ ἄνθρωπε in Romans 2:1, Is this a common usage from one Jew to another in antiquity?

[bwheeler84]

According to RC Sproul, in his commentary, the term ὦ ἄνθρωπε was a common form of address used between Jews. This would be important in understanding if the passages is directed specifically at Jews. I cannot find this same reference in any other commentary, Hodge, Cranfield, Calvin.

Does anyone know the source commentary the Sproul is using here or has anyone else hear of this?

 

[timfost]

I'm not sure about the Greek word, but William Hendriksen makes a similar point. According to him, Rom. 1:18-32 deals particularly with Gentile sins and ch. 2 deals with Jewish sins. This interpretation seems viable since he asks the question in 3:1 "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?" (which would be awkward placement if he was not addressing the Jews particularly). He also summarizes in 3:9b "For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin."

It is Paul's way of speaking about the "bad news" so that all of his hearers are hungry for "good news." He satisfies this craving starting in 3:21.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Personally, I dispute the contention, specifically that the address shifts at 2:1 to a Jewish-particular, or that this is proved by Paul's word choice. This is in no way demonstrable. V17 makes the first, and logically correct address specifically to the Jewish target.

There is an important "character" left out of the witnessing equation if 2:1 is turned into an exclusively Jewish address (and, as I said, it is not at all obvious from the language). This character is the Gentile "moralist," e.g. the Stoic, or some other.

The godless characters described at the end of ch.1 are certainly a general description of all men without and apart from the true God. But, there will always be those who elevate themselves above their fellows--be it intellectually, spiritually, morally, etc.--and these self-righteous also must be broken before the bar of heaven.

The early vv of ch.2 address moralists of all kinds, and not simply the Jewish legal-moralist, or covenant-moralist (who banks on his heritage). Paul's address, from 1:18-3:20 covers the whole spectrum of ungodliness. He passes almost seamlessly from the benighted barbarian on the far end, 1:23, to the outwardly in-covenant man at the other extreme, 2:28f. No, but all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (3:23).

 

[bwheeler84]

I have read the evidence on both sides, my question isn't who is being address, rather the if ὦ ἄνθρωπε was a common form of address used between Jews as Sproul states in his commentary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I have read the evidence on both sides, my question isn't who is being address, rather the if ὦ ἄνθρωπε was a common form of address used between Jews as Sproul states in his commentary.

I assume the RCS statement is unattributed, not-footnoted? At this point, he's your "expert," who says, "Trust me, I know what I'm talking about." Personally, while I think RCS is a good guy and communicator, I don't think his commentaries are much more than sermons transcribed. That's not meant to slight them; but they are not intended as scholarly but popular works. Preachers present condensed knowledge as a rule.

The answer to your specific interest would, it seems to me, be dependent on rather thorough knowledge (gained first or second hand) of the literature of ancient Judaism, and within that literature: dialog, such as recorded in the Gospels/Acts. The NT contains this address very few times (on cursory exam) in those books, only Lk.12:14; & 22:58,60 (written for his principally Gentile audience; I found it nowhere in the other three Gospels), and 3X in the literary context of Paul's letter to the Romans, 2:1, 2:3, and 9:20. That's 2X in the passage under question, so mostly excluded for the sake of the question.

The address is found on two occasions in the OT, Dan.10:19 and Mic.6:8. 7X other (6OT/1NT) is the technical address, "O man of God." This total amount of data is hardly sufficient to determine whether Jews habitually addressed one another (and did not address Greeks, or others) in this manner.

I doubt older writers (Calvin, Haldane, etc.) had the raw data, nor did anyone else, to determine from collated literature whether the expression was particularly Jew-to-Jew address. So, the question is one that will likely be answerable (if it is ever addressed) only by the most modern and technical commentaries or journal articles in the specialty.

For my part, I would take RCS's statement as no more than his unsubstantiated judgment, possibly based on some other opinion gleaned elsewhere (source forgotten?). I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. Scripture contains only the fact of its use, occasionally, in fairly diverse contexts where those addressed were not named or nameable.

My point in offering my own assessment of the address, is that the context is far more informative of the meaning, than any supposed tradition related to how Jewish males may have addressed each other.