Debatten über den Abfassungsanlass des Römerbriefes in Kommentaren der Reformationszeit

In contemporary exegesis, the image prevails that the interpreters of the Reformation period read the Pauline Epistles as timeless theological treatises and not as situational and contextual letters. Melanchthon’s characterization of the Epistle to the Romans as a «doctrinae christianae compendium» is often cited as evidence for this. In contrast, the exemplary study of eight argumenta of commentaries on the Letter to the Romans from the 16th century shows that the early modern commentators had a picture of the historical circumstances in which this letter was written and tried to understand the letter from it. For this end, they used information from ancient commentaries (especially from Origen, Pelagius and Pseudo-Ambrosius) about Paul’s life and the situation in Rome. In contemporary exegesis, the image prevails that the interpreters of the Reformation period read the Pauline Epistles as timeless theological treatises and not as situational and contextual letters. Melanchthon’s characterization of the Epistle to the Romans as a «doctrinae christianae compendium» is often cited as evidence for this. In contrast, the exemplary study of eight argumenta of commentaries on the Letter to the Romans from the 16th century shows that the early modern commentators had a picture of the historical circumstances in which this letter was written and tried to understand the letter from it. For this end, they used information from ancient commentaries (especially from Origen, Pelagius and Pseudo-Ambrosius) about Paul’s life and the situation in Rome.