Campbell-why no written cues to satire?


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


About jamesbradfordpate

My name is James Pate. I study the History of Biblical Interpretation at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio, as part of its Ph.D. program. I have an M.A. in Hebrew Bible from Jewish Theological Seminary, an M.Div. from Harvard Divinity School, and a B.A. from DePauw University. This blog is about my journey. I read books. I watch movies and TV shows. I go to church. I try to find meaning. And, when I can’t do that, I just talk about stuff that I find interesting.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s