Romans 3. 1–8 reconsidered
Romans 3. 1–8 is one of the most puzzling passages in the epistle. It is commonly assumed that Paul is here using the ‘diatribe’ style of contemporary philosophers. In the diatribe, arguments are put into the mouth of imaginary objectors, and the writer replies to them in the form of a dialogue. But...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
1983
|
| In: |
New Testament studies
Year: 1983, Volume: 29, Issue: 2, Pages: 183-197 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Romans 3. 1–8 is one of the most puzzling passages in the epistle. It is commonly assumed that Paul is here using the ‘diatribe’ style of contemporary philosophers. In the diatribe, arguments are put into the mouth of imaginary objectors, and the writer replies to them in the form of a dialogue. But we must confess that, if Paul is really using the diatribe style in this passage, he is using it in a very strange way. Normally, in the diatribe, the objector's point is stated briefly, and replied to in detail. But in Romans 3. 1–8, as commonly interpreted, the objections are stated in detail, and Paul's replies are brief and inadequate. Various explanations are given for this by the commentators. According to Dodd, ‘the whole argument of 3. 1–8 is obscure and feeble’ because Paul is ‘defending a poor case’. Other scholars are more charitable, saying that the questions raised by the imaginary objector are in fact adequately answered later in the epistle. But they fail to explain why Paul should state at this stage in the epistle detailed objections, to which he is either not willing or not able to give an immediate answer. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-8145 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: New Testament studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500010705 |