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...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hall, David R. (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

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1785731963
003 DE-627
005 20221219192352.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220112s1983 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1017/S0028688500010705  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1785731963 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1785731963 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Hall, David R.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
109 |a Hall, David R.  |a Hall, David 
245 1 0 |a Romans 3. 1–8 reconsidered 
264 1 |c 1983 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a 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. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t New Testament studies  |d Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1954  |g 29(1983), 2, Seite 183-197  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)300895283  |w (DE-600)1483312-8  |w (DE-576)079165583  |x 1469-8145  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:29  |g year:1983  |g number:2  |g pages:183-197 
776 |i Erscheint auch als  |n Druckausgabe  |w (DE-627)831696826  |k Non-Electronic 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500010705  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/romans-3-18-reconsidered/C6F267166AA871A1577AB2FA0635D8E2  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo  |a BIIN 
936 u w |d 29  |j 1983  |e 2  |h 183-197 
951 |a AR 
BIB |a 1 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4033794506 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1785731963 
LOK |0 005 20220112044325 
LOK |0 008 220112||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-01-05#174BDB6E63FBDD54923E6B2FB9D54898EDF9E600 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
SUB |a BIB