British New Testament Society

Herodias's daughter has been described as 'the symbolic incarnation of undying Lust, the Goddess of immortal Hysteria, the accursed Beauty exalted above all other beauties... the monstrous Beast, indifferent, irresponsible, insensible, poisoning'. As part of an analysis not of the biblical text but rather of Gustave Moreau's first painting on Salome (1876), these comments reflect a popular understanding of the biblical woman seen as responsible for the death of John the Baptist. Salome has become for many the quintessential femme fatale. Her many and varied journeys from paper to canvas and stage betray a fascination with the biblical character of whom the Bible tells us so little.

The connection between Oscar Wilde's play Salomé and Richard Strauss's opera Salome is well-documented. Both Wilde and Strauss have been criticized for having a 'nauseating' effect on their audiences, and the most striking shared element is Salome's sexual interest in Jochanaan/Jokanaan, which culminates in her kissing the decapitated head of the prophet on the mouth. This element is completely absent from the biblical text, so how did it emerge? Is Oscar Wilde responsible for it? Is it typical of his times? This paper looks at the complex relationships between the biblical text and its literary and artistic hybrid existences, its metamorphoses.

We are indebted to T.H.L. Parker's Commentaries on Romans 1532-1542 (T&T Clark, 1986) in which he deals painstakingly with 11 commentaries proper written between 1532 and 1542. Parker was prepared to state his opinions: Melanchthon was a giant, Calvin is to be praised for his single-minded objectivity(x). There is admiration for Bucer even though he is unreadable. Bullinger is great on theory, less so in practice. Yet, Sadoleto (pace Roussel) is quite mediocre; indeed, as a group, the Catholics seemed to find Romans hard going. They did not use rhetorical tools to explain texts. Perhaps they were looking over their shoulders; after all, Sorbonne and Catharinus censured Caietan's attempts for being interested in Erasmus NT and the OT Hebrew.

There are three matters in which there is room for complementing Parker's work. There seems in Parker a tip-toeing around controversial and polemical theology and no real account of the awareness of other opposed views. Second, in giving us what 11 commentators had to say on Rom 1.18-23; 2.13; 3.20-28, he does not centre on the passage which must have given the sharpest differences of opinion: Romans 7:14-8:4. Third, in limiting himself to a decade the story of Romans in the Reformation lacks its beginning as well as its resolution. Parker's work is invaluable, but is a spur. In this paper, a review of treatments of Rom 7:14-8:4 and their reception will aim to show more clearly what was at issue between the interpreters.