羅馬書查經參考
以下為夜校同學的功課，所以凡引用以下的查經必須遵守以下的要求：
|
用黃色背景的是學者們的研究，我將它們放在相關的章數中．
|
Scholars' Research:
Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-"New Perspective" Perspective
by Brenda Byrne Harvard Theological Review Issue: July, 2001 (firsr page; whole article in one page.)
Conclusion
There are, of course, other aspects
from which one can interpret Romans theologically. Many particular passages
and sections in the letter clamor for separate theological treatment.(47) The
possibilities are greatly multiplied by approaches that sit less tightly to
the historical-critical paradigm that has basically been operative here. What
this paper has attempted to present is a particular theological vision emerging
from the letter as a whole: the vision of a God who in the person of the Son
faithfully engages in a costly and vulnerable intervention into the world in
order, through the gift of the Spirit, to roll back human selfishness and empower
human beings to live faithfully in and for the world.(48) In this, I would conclude,
Paul has successfully addressed the issue of God's righteousness raised programmatically
in the mode of a theodicy at the beginning of the letter (1:16; cf. 3:1-8).
There is no cause to be "ashamed" of the gospel. It shows that God
has been comprehensively faithful both as covenant partner of Israel and as
Creator of the world (the subjective aspect of "God's righteousness").
For all its devastating indictment of human failure and sinfulness, including
that of Israel, the gospel shows how through the action of the Son, continued
in the Spirit, God restores human dignity, making human lives embodiments and
instruments of the same divine faithfulness (the objective sense of "God's
righteousness"). While applauding many aspects of the new perspective on
Paul--indeed believing myself to stand fundamentally within it--I would hope
that it will not lose sight of the more radical vision that previous generations
have drawn from Paul's letter to Rome.
This article examines the relevance of the rhetorical model in the case of the letter to the Romans. It shows that the presence of this model does not imply that the letter reproduces the standard dispositio (exordium, narratio, probatio, peroratio). On the contrary, Paul is quite capable of using the model in an original way; each section (1,18-4,25; 5,1-8,39; 9,1-11,36) of the first eleven chapters forms a rhetorical unit, and the various units are linked to each other by relaying propositiones (at least for Rom 1-8). While not extending the model to Rom 12-15, the article raises the question of the relationship between 9-11 to the first eight chapters. However, it does show that the extent of the propositio in 1,16-17 is far-reaching; these verses truly deserve the name of main propositio.
This article examines a silence in Rom: although there is much there about God's justice, the Apostle does not give a short and precise definition of exactly what he means by "God's justice", neither at the beginning nor at the end of his argumentation. The answer is found in several places. This shows, most importantly, that Paul does not omit the definition of justice (human and divine) by an oversight. Rather, the reasons for his silence are mainly rhetorical. For him it is a question of modalities (the "how") and these alone show, and thus "define", divine justice.
Aletti, J.N., "Romains 2. Sa coherence et sa fonction", Vol. 77(1996) 153-177.
Aletti, J.N., "Romains 5,12-21. Logique, sens et fonction", Vol. 78(1997) 3-32.
Rom 5,12-21 - especially the eph' o clause of 5,12 - has been examined so many times that one might wonder whether there is anything new to say. But not all the components of the passage have been sufficiently taken into account by exegetes, especially its structure and dynamics, the expolitio of vv.13-14 and, last but not least, the synkrisis of vv.15-19. Besides, not enough attention has been paid to the Biblical and Jewish parallels. Only after the interrelationship of the rethorical and semantic elements of the passage has been adequately considered, can one see its relevance and function in the Letter to the Romans.
Gieniusz, A., <<Rom
7,1-6: Lack of Imagination? Function of the Passage in the Argumentation of
Rom 6,1 – 7,6>>, Biblica, Vol. 74(1993) 389-400.
The following two articles are from NTA (http://members.aol.com/ntaweston/canon.html#int)
762. M. J. Cook, "The Jewish Scholar and New Testament Images of Judaism," Lutheran Theological Seminary Bulletin [Gettysburg, PA] 77 (4, '97) 21-41. The article explains and evaluates five Jewish avenues of approach to the NT: (1) Changes in Christianity's self-perception vis-…-vis Judaism occasioned corresponding adjustments in portrayals of Jesus' stance toward Jews and Judaism as presented in the Gospels. (2) The various ways in which Paul's theology was understood influenced the Gospel portraits of Jesus. (3) In the process of responding to challenges by Jewish opponents, emerging Christianity adjusted or added to Jesus-traditions teachings and nuances not authentic to Jesus' ministry. Accordingly, teachings ascribed to Jesus---and impinging on Jews and Judaism---should not be viewed only as an undifferentiated mass. (4) Study of the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns reveals that later writers intensified the anti-Judaism of their sources. And so one might plausibly argue that anti-Judaism decreases as we regress to Christian origins. (5) A major reason why passages in the Jewish Bible seem to predict the coming of Jesus is that Christian tradition came to model Jesus' image in conformity with Jewish scriptural imagery.---D.J.H.
763. J. C. de Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches," RelTheol/RelTeol 4 (3, '97) 190-207. Although many biblical narratives may not match the highly developed narrative composition of modern narratives, a literary approach to biblical narratives occupies its own position in the discipline of literary studies. Biblical narrative scholars should make an effort to situate their own literary enterprise within the broader literary field, and be aware of its strong points and weaknesses. Those who choose the traditional Anglo-American approach can be assured of its achievements in the past and can be enthusiastic about its prospects for the future.---C.R.M.
Review on New Perspective: