I am summarizing and commenting on the articles in the book Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul, which discusses Douglas Campbell’s proposal for interpreting Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
Douglas Campbell’s claim that Paul placed a satiric, parodied version of an opponents argument in Romans 1-3 is unlikely because Paul would have given us written cues to his satire as other ancient writers do. This is the essence of Robin Griffith-Jones critique of Douglas Campbell in a chapter called “Beyond Reasonable Hope of Recognition.”
In response Campbell clarifies his position.
“My thesis, then, suitably clarified is that Romans 1:18-3:20 is best construed as a broadly Socratic argument that refutes an opponent in terms of his demonstrable self-contradictions. And it begins by presenting a particular position occupied by that person, which will be the basis for the contradictions demonstrated later on. . . .”
He admits that Griffith-Jones shows…
View original post 254 more words
