I am proposing an argument and outline for Romans that fits pretty well with studies and conclusions obtained by various scholars in the last thirty years. The purpose of Romans was to address several issues among the gentile believers: animosity against the Jews, problem of Roman's boasting, a denigration of the Law, and their fleshly indulgences. There also was the intent of Paul to use Rome as a platform to reach Spain.

Some scholarly documents support various purposes similar to those mentioned above.

Anyhow I have written my analysis and placed it at www.BibleReexamined.com/RomansTopics.htm and would appreciate any constructive review.

These articles were created in response to someone's difference of opinion, but the response was way too long to simply post in the forum --don't you sometimes hate seeing a response that is more than a screenful of text??

Oh yeah. This analysis isn't of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) viewpoint -- for those interested or concerned about the NPP.

Moderated By: {Tim}

I fixed the link for you as requested. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Your link is wrong. I believe you mean http://www.biblereexamined.com/RomansTopics.htm

When meta-narratives are decided over a text, they often have a very controlling influence upon the exegetical decisions made about individual passages which fall within that framework. The method can be as much a source of error, as wisdom. Parallelomania starts impossing texts in unnatural ways to fit the synthesis because it is too reductionistic in its comprehension of what is going on. Real life is more complex and subtle than our theories about it, and the best method to approach Scripture is to allow each text to speak naturally and then only make a synthesis later on, after much reluctance and careful concern.

Originally posted by Whipartist

When meta-narratives are decided over a text, they often have a very controlling influence upon the exegetical decisions made about individual passages which fall within that framework. The method can be as much a source of error, as wisdom.

I certainly agree with the nature of your concerns and hope that people are cautious in accepting the idea.
In looking at interpretation models there are even opposing camps of theology in which the doctrines make sense to the adherents and are pretty much logical in the assembly. But one or both camps can be wrong or incomplete.

And indeed each of us can be caught in pride, self-deception or logical fallacies (and do this even as a true believer and follower of Christ). Hence, those handles we grab hold of may not be connected to a solid wall.

While keeping these concerns as active filters upon our minds, I suggest a context upon Romans that I can only present as a cohesive and detailed presentation. Without providing the broad view of what I have seen, then people could only superficially contest the proposed purpose. And my thought was that the context of Romans could go on being misconstrued if my ideas weren't presented here. (The idea of "each joint supplying" comes to mind at this moment.)

Originally posted by Whipartist

Parallelomania starts impossing texts in unnatural ways to fit the synthesis because it is too reductionistic in its comprehension of what is going on.

But there also is the error of trying to make a verse have meaning within the apparent context when the context is misunderstood. Truly the decent teachers will teach believers to find the context of the verse rather than just applying one's mind to the single verse. All sorts of odd ideas can come from interpreting verses without the contextual considerations.

It would be a mistake of the largest magnitude if one were to assume that my understanding hinged on one verse (e.g. Rom 2:1). Indeed, the struggle to find a context in which Rom 2:1 could make sense was what began the study. To say this was the verse that established the meaning of the whole book is like saying that a race car driver won the race only cause the engine started.

The analysis being provided on my site correlates with some other theologians such that my findings were not exclusive or unusual. It seems that my ideas may actually provide an argument and structure for ideas that came merely as hunches or impressions to some of the theologians. Though, I haven't read any material indicating how these people recognized that the idea of racial tension among the Roman believers.

Originally posted by Whipartist

Real life is more complex and subtle than our theories about it, and the best method to approach Scripture is to allow each text to speak naturally and then only make a synthesis later on, after much reluctance and careful concern.

Again, if the reader has the wrong context, beware of what he learns from the verses.
Again, this document is a proposal and not offered as final doctrine. The risk of promoting error among believers appears low since the context changes don't seem to affect the meanings of the doctrines previously gleaned from Romans.

Of course this synthesis has taken 25 years to occur. If I wait another 25 years of synthesis I may be dead before I provided anything useful.

The text has spoken naturally and the website link( i.e. the correct URL) provides the documents on the natural outcome, especially of the dearth of explanation for the shift from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2 in Romans.

My hope is that this information I "discovered" is true and is helpful for the clarification of Romans. Yet, until I present the ideas it may just be the trickery of my own mind. I also imagined that the arguments and outlines would make the "truths" self-evident having only required that the reader to be put on the right track. Though, this is not desired without the cautions you have mentioned.

One thing to consider at this point would be with respect to the limits of exegesis...
Exegesis isn't something I have studied but what I have seen is that Exegesis really means to apply some common sense when reading scripture. But the assumption may be that a book such as Romans was written in an expository fashion. If the style of writing differs from the assumption, the interpretation then can fail.

Thanks for you contribution. (And thanks Tercel for correcting the link)

Originally posted by mikewhitney

I certainly agree with the nature of your concerns and hope that people are cautious in accepting the idea.
In looking at interpretation models there are even opposing camps of theology in which the doctrines make sense to the adherents and are pretty much logical in the assembly. But one or both camps can be wrong or incomplete.

And indeed each of us can be caught in pride, self-deception or logical fallacies (and do this even as a true believer and follower of Christ). Hence, those handles we grab hold of may not be connected to a solid wall.

While keeping these concerns as active filters upon our minds, I suggest a context upon Romans that I can only present as a cohesive and detailed presentation. Without providing the broad view of what I have seen, then people could only superficially contest the proposed purpose. And my thought was that the context of Romans could go on being misconstrued if my ideas weren't presented here. (The idea of "each joint supplying" comes to mind at this moment.)



But there also is the error of trying to make a verse have meaning within the apparent context when the context is misunderstood. Truly the decent teachers will teach believers to find the context of the verse rather than just applying one's mind to the single verse. All sorts of odd ideas can come from interpreting verses without the contextual considerations.

It would be a mistake of the largest magnitude if one were to assume that my understanding hinged on one verse (e.g. Rom 2:1). Indeed, the struggle to find a context in which Rom 2:1 could make sense was what began the study. To say this was the verse that established the meaning of the whole book is like saying that a race car driver won the race only cause the engine started.

The analysis being provided on my site correlates with some other theologians such that my findings were not exclusive or unusual. It seems that my ideas may actually provide an argument and structure for ideas that came merely as hunches or impressions to some of the theologians. Though, I haven't read any material indicating how these people recognized that the idea of racial tension among the Roman believers.




Again, if the reader has the wrong context, beware of what he learns from the verses.
Again, this document is a proposal and not offered as final doctrine. The risk of promoting error among believers appears low since the context changes don't seem to affect the meanings of the doctrines previously gleaned from Romans.

Of course this synthesis has taken 25 years to occur. If I wait another 25 years of synthesis I may be dead before I provided anything useful.

The text has spoken naturally and the website link( i.e. the correct URL) provides the documents on the natural outcome, especially of the dearth of explanation for the shift from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2 in Romans.

My hope is that this information I "discovered" is true and is helpful for the clarification of Romans. Yet, until I present the ideas it may just be the trickery of my own mind. I also imagined that the arguments and outlines would make the "truths" self-evident having only required that the reader to be put on the right track. Though, this is not desired without the cautions you have mentioned.

One thing to consider at this point would be with respect to the limits of exegesis...
Exegesis isn't something I have studied but what I have seen is that Exegesis really means to apply some common sense when reading scripture. But the assumption may be that a book such as Romans was written in an expository fashion. If the style of writing differs from the assumption, the interpretation then can fail.

Thanks for you contribution. (And thanks Tercel for correcting the link)

I understand where you're coming from. As you know through our previous exchanges, it seems to me that your metanarrative imposes an odd view to Romans 2. The natural way to take Romans 2, to me, seems like primarily a condemnation of Jews, not Gentile Christians. He first condemns Gentiles in chapter 1, then shifts over to condemn those who condemn. Presumably Jews. Reinforce with then turning positive again in vs. 13 when he then brings up the term "Gentiles" in vs. 14. And then addresses Jews directly in vs. 17 in a continuing negative tone. He ends the chapter with a condemnation of Jews.

I feel Paul is arguing for equality before God between Jews and Gentiles, on the basis of faith. That much is clear, but I feel you've gotten too specific in relation to what issues Paul's addressing. Sometimes real life is very complex.

Anyway, I'm not wanting to get too deep into this with you, as I'm sure you have a lot more you could say, having written all you have. Just wanted to say my 2 cents.

God bless, Ben

Originally posted by mikewhitney

Anyhow I have written my analysis and placed it at www.BibleReexamined.com/RomansTopics.htm and would appreciate any constructive review.

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure which of the three main documents listed there you referred to, but I briefly looked through all three. I think I agree with Whipartist here. It is very easy to see a theme in one of Paul's letters and proceed to apply that to the whole of the letter, as if it is the point he is arguing for. I know because in the past I have done this myself. Now I consider such an approach somewhat eisegetical. It is far better to first understand how his readers may have viewed things, then to read what Paul says to them in that context - rather than interpret Paul in a certain way and then assume what his readers must have been thinking. Parts of your outline seem to follow the latter logic. So I think your overview would benefit from studying the cultural background more, as I have certainly found such study immeasurably useful.

I too am currently piecing together my own outline of Romans, and it looks somewhat different to yours. Paul's speech-in-character dialogue with the Jewish teacher (or similar) throughout Romans becomes far more significant in the context of a "following traditional interpretation of the Torah" vs "following Jesus' teachings" theme or similar throughout the letter. Paul addresses many issues that flow from that underlying theme, those that immediately come to my mind are:

• What qualifies people as a children of God
• The equality and inclusion of Gentiles, as well as Jews, as God's people
• The significance of following Jesus rather than the traditional interpretation of the Torah for present life and future hope
• How following Jesus fits with God's promises (understood by Jews to only include the Israelites)
• The instructions he gives in light of his argument and conclusions, including guidelines for interaction between Gentiles and Jews

It seems to me that Paul's letter was purposed at addressing differences of opinion between Jewish and Gentile believers, to what seems to be a primarily Gentile audience (for whatever reason). This would make sense, because these differences were a major cause of controversy in the decades following Jesus' ministry and resurrection. The issue of unity between the communities of Jewish and Gentile believers was a consequence of these differences in opinions on doctrine. Likewise, the "pride" of the Jews was also a consequence of their beliefs. These two issues are born from the underlying differences of opinion regarding doctrine, beliefs and customs. So I think Paul's purpose and argument in the letter is in what lies behind the two issues you have identified, and is not with those issues themselves.

Given the large number of different interpretations of Romans and parts that I have read among scholarship, I am hesitant to think anyone is correctly and fully understanding all of it, including myself. With this in mind, I am somewhat open in my understanding of Romans and I use my my current understanding with caution, as I know I could be misunderstanding it. You seem to adopt a similar flexible approach, which I think is good, as I've found it to be helpful in deepening my understanding of Romans. Gradually, the more viewpoints one gets, the more readily a natural understanding of the text becomes apparent. I encourage you on your search!

Originally posted by Flux

The issue of unity between the communities of Jewish and Gentile believers was a consequence of these differences in opinions on doctrine. Likewise, the "pride" of the Jews was also a consequence of their beliefs. These two issues are born from the underlying differences of opinion regarding doctrine, beliefs and customs. !

I think the 'pride' of the Jews was in their birthright - Paul was basically dealing with a panic attack on their part as they watched their position as 'teachers' diminish. The gentiles were getting the picture quicker and better than they were - Paul seems to be trying to reduce that frustration for the Jews without hindering the progress of the gentiles.

Originally posted by RanRan

I think the 'pride' of the Jews was in their birthright - Paul was basically dealing with a panic attack on their part as they watched their position as 'teachers' diminish. The gentiles were getting the picture quicker and better than they were - Paul seems to be trying to reduce that frustration for the Jews without hindering the progress of the gentiles.

Alternatively, I have read one scholar who argues that Paul was trying to explain to the Gentile Christians why they should not Judaize as some of the Jewish Christians were trying to teach. Paul is arguing that Gentiles need not become followers of the traditional interpretation of the Torah to be included in God's people - something that would have been as shocking to many Jews as saying today that not only Christians but also some Muslims are God's people. That gives an idea of how strongly many Jews would have reacted to Paul's message.

Paul's teachings in Romans appear to be a represetative example of what made the Jews end up getting him imprisoned. So I find it unlikely that Paul is trying to "ease the frustration of the Jews" when he seems to advocate a message that typically had exactly the opposite affect. Furthermore, it seems Paul is writing primarily to an audience of Gentiles, which also makes the suggestion that the purpose of Romans is to ease frustration of Jewish Christians seem unlikely to me.

Flux,

Thanks for looking at the site. The documents should be read from top down as far as one wishes to go.

It is far better to first understand how his readers may have viewed things, then to read what Paul says to them in that context

I think the articles show that I have read Romans as an original reader. Indeed the skill to read as an original reader seems critical. Plus we need to read these letters in the time frame that such were written. The reason I spoke of the emotion of reading Chapter 1 was in part to promote and realize the reading from the Roman's viewpoint. This original reader experience (ORE) was what led me to get stuck at Rom 2:1 and to understand Romans.
The investigation into Paul's use of pronouns even promotes the idea of reading from the ORE. The second link (about Paul's argument) dealt with pronouns from the writer perspective but the analysis could be done from the ORE perspective. You should try that. We can all learn from it --Sorry. I was doing an experiment with pronouns.
Let the pronouns speak for themselves.

The analysis may often focus on Paul's intent and mindset because I was trying to show the purpose of Romans. This would be eventually to help people read from the Roman's perspective. So should I take a different approach to show his purpose?

I think I agree with Whipartist here. It is very easy to see a theme in one of Paul's letters and proceed to apply that to the whole of the letter, as if it is the point he is arguing for. I know because in the past I have done this myself. Now I consider such an approach somewhat eisegetical.

There's full agreement among us not to extend a theme unnaturally. Yet the theme or purpose is the question at hand. So it has to be checked whether the theme has sufficient evidential support.

We need to consider some thoughts for ascertaining Paul's purpose:
1. Was the purpose to help Romans or was it mainly for another reason (such as to evangelize past Rome)?
2. If the purpose was doctrinal does that mean that there were no problems among the Romans?
3. If the purpose was doctrinal, doesn't that purpose show there was a doctrinal problem there?
4. Or is there further textual evidence to show there were problems?

Rom 15:15 shows that Paul was writing a harsh letter to the Roman believers.
Rom 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort <or on some points>, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

An idea comes to mind that we might be helped better by finding what we agree upon lest we spend time arguing for the same facts. The first issue, if we go so far, would be whether Paul's purpose addresses a problem. Then the possible problems could be listed and considered..

So I think your overview would benefit from studying the cultural background more, as I have certainly found such study immeasurably useful.

Gradually, the more viewpoints one gets, the more readily a natural understanding of the text becomes apparent

.

It seems that initial reliance on these other materials just can promote the perspectives of the other writes. The natural understanding should come from reading Romans. But after first studying Romans there could be good gain in studying the cultural backdrop. [In reality we need people starting from different approaches.]
But it is fine to consider whether a cultural factor causes a difference of understanding. It seems that one has been mentioned as being " speech-in-character dialogue with the Jewish teacher." Then it could be considered whether this was just a technique to create hypothetical problems in order to provide wise solutions. If there were actual problems, this technique could be used to diffuse resistance of the readers to what Paul is saying.

It seems to me that Paul's letter was purposed at addressing differences of opinion between Jewish and Gentile believers, to what seems to be a primarily Gentile audience (for whatever reason).

I'm glad you too see it as a primarily Gentile audience. But the "differences" concept doesn't seem to apply since this was being written essentially to a Gentile audience.

Hope these ideas are helpful. Don't feel compelled to respond to everything here but only respond to what you like.

Blessings in Christ,

Mike

Originally posted by mikewhitney

I think the articles show that I have read Romans as an original reader.

That's a rather audacious claim! Did you live 2000 years ago in Rome? No one today is now capable of reading Romans as an original reader - at best we can hope to be aware of certain significant elements of cultural context that are known. But without doubt there will be some significant elements in Paul's writing that are lost on us.

I agree that understanding the cultural context is critical. What we seem to differ on is elements of what that cultural context was.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

The analysis may often focus on Paul's intent and mindset because I was trying to show the purpose of Romans. This would be eventually to help people read from the Roman's perspective. So should I take a different approach to show his purpose?

I think it is laudable to attempt to determine the purpose and argument of Romans. From my perspective, it seems like you are aware of a certain subset of the cultural context and have assumed that's all of it. I think if included more of the cultural context your interpretation may change, in exactly the same way that as I learn more of the context my interpretation can change. For this reason, I am hesitant to think any position regarding the purpose and argument of Romans is fully accurate. I take a great deal of caution when trying to understand Paul. To me it seems like you are quite sure that your understanding is correct. I'm questioning that view by pointing out that neither of us as a full understanding of the cultural context, and you seem to be not taking into consideration context that I consider essential.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

We need to consider some thoughts for ascertaining Paul's purpose:
1. Was the purpose to help Romans or was it mainly for another reason (such as to evangelize past Rome)?
2. If the purpose was doctrinal does that mean that there were no problems among the Romans?
3. If the purpose was doctrinal, doesn't that purpose show there was a doctrinal problem there?
4. Or is there further textual evidence to show there were problems?

There are many possibilities on the purpose of Romans that you've not listed here, categorising the possibilities into things like "help", "doctrinal instruction", or "addressing problems" could limit those possibilities. So for example, he could have been writing to encourage the Gentile Christians not to follow the Judaizing Christian teachers, but rather simply follow Jesus (this seems to me a likely purpose). Or, perhaps he was explaining his position so that they would help him on his way to Spain. Certainly Paul gives attention to interaction between the Gentiles to the Jews, and one purpose could have been to give instruction in this regard. The list could go on and on... You're seeming determination to find one particular "problem" that the letter concerned is not necessarily helpful.

There is no evidence to suggest the Gentile Christians were not familiar already with the gospel of Jesus. Nor is there evidence to suggest his letter was primarily theological in purpose - for the arguments he uses are for that purpose. Many people think Paul's arguments themselves are what he's teaching, but I think Paul is using the arguments to persuade his audience toward some viewpoint. The difference is important for interpreting his letter... but that is something of an aside.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

It seems that initial reliance on these other materials just can promote the perspectives of the other writes. The natural understanding should come from reading Romans. But after first studying Romans there could be good gain in studying the cultural backdrop. [In reality we need people starting from different approaches.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It sounds like you think reading others' interpretations of Romans is not helpful in the first sentence, and then you seem to say the opposite in your last sentence...

Originally posted by mikewhitney

But it is fine to consider whether a cultural factor causes a difference of understanding. It seems that one has been mentioned as being " speech-in-character dialogue with the Jewish teacher." Then it could be considered whether this was just a technique to create hypothetical problems in order to provide wise solutions. If there were actual problems, this technique could be used to diffuse resistance of the readers to what Paul is saying.

The rhetorical purpose and usage of the speech-in-character technique is quite well known among scholars who study it, and finds many examples in extra-biblical sources. There is no need to guess about its purpose. It was a common technique Paul used to help form, clarify, direct and nuance his argument, he did not use it to create hypothetical problems or diffuse resistance by the reader.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

I'm glad you too see it as a primarily Gentile audience. But the "differences" concept doesn't seem to apply since this was being written essentially to a Gentile audience.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the differences concept". Do you refer to the difference in opinions between Jews and Gentile on following the Torah which Paul quite clearly addresses as a primary part of his letter?

NOTE
I would like to try an experiment here and now.

This idea in part is brought up with some thoughts that came up discussing a different topic with Whipartist.

Somehow we get too defensive and aggressive. We seem to get too strong on correcting the other person almost as if the other were an enemy. Look at me! one of the worst offenders.

If possible lets make this flow more as a mutual examination of ideas where each of us can even analyze or improve our proposed by the graceful persuasions of the other.

Alas, I may just be too much a dreamer.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

NOTE
I would like to try an experiment here and now.

This idea in part is brought up with some thoughts that came up discussing a different topic with Whipartist.

Somehow we get too defensive and aggressive. We seem to get too strong on correcting the other person almost as if the other were an enemy. Look at me! one of the worst offenders.

If possible lets make this flow more as a mutual examination of ideas where each of us can even analyze or improve our proposed by the graceful persuasions of the other.

Alas, I may just be too much a dreamer.

Yes, I think it is greatly helpful to seperate the topic from the people discussing the topic, and perhaps I did not do that as well as I could have here. Forgive me if I came accross as aggressive or defensive, that was not my intention. I feel like I am qualified to made some statements based on my study in this area, and was simply seeking to contribute some useful ideas because of this. Perhaps I did not do that in the best way, so my apologies if I offended anyone.

Hi Flux.

Originally posted by Flux

Yes, I think it is greatly helpful to seperate the topic from the people discussing the topic, and perhaps I did not do that as well as I could have here. Forgive me if I came accross as aggressive or defensive, that was not my intention. I feel like I am qualified to made some statements based on my study in this area, and was simply seeking to contribute some useful ideas because of this. Perhaps I did not do that in the best way, so my apologies if I offended anyone.

The tone hadn't gotten too bad. I just wanted to express the idea and see if it helps. It may turn out that I am just setting a mood that would stack the deck toward my proposed idea.

One thing I have tried in vain before was to find out what areas are held in common. Such was what I was discussing on my last post regarding the steps in considering a purpose. The sequence wasn't comprehensive but there was a bit of an argument and direction introduced too. ( The option of describing the purpose as being purely doctrinal was brought up to show that it probably wouldn't be purely doctrinal, that it could be shown that a problem existed..)

And it can be noted that my study has only been in Romans with a mere pittance of review of scholars' analysis. A shortcut has been taken by my asking other people to look at the analysis without me having done more research.

If willing I would like to check on the idea of the natural reading or the original reader experience or otherwise it could be explored as to whether the purpose was to solve a problem and some agreement on what the problem is.

On the reader experience it seems that the evidence points to the "you" as being Romans Gentiles. When Paul speaks of "we" he seems to mean himself and these Gentiles. If we read the letter today it seems like we can experience some of the same emotions such as when being accused of judging suddenly in Rom 2:1. Is there something in the first two chapters regarding culture or "speech in character" that would take away the shock of being accused of judging?

And is this "speech in character" used by Paul in most of his letters so as to show this as a standard technique of Paul? This technique seems to be something for scholars and elites of the time leading up to and into the first century but Paul's audience is the common man. So it would be interesting to ascertain Paul's reason for following this style, if he was applying the "speech in character" format. Then it would also be important to see the whose voice Paul is speaking for in each passage proposed to be in this style.
I think that the Rom 2:17-24 may be considered such a passage? Or the enigmatic passage of Rom 7:7-25 I think was described as such, but then Paul is speaking as himself and not as another person or he may transition from his condition before salvation into the state after salvation.

These aren't the only ideas to look at. So just offer another direction if you wish.

Blessings in Christ,

Mike Whitney

I'm learning my lesson here too. Love, first and foremost. Yet we bear responsibility for our views and teachings of the Scriptures, so let us also not shy away from frankness about the seriousness of what we are discussing.

I wish I had time to participate but I'm extremely swamped with work and about to leave on a business trip. If things are still going, I may participate in the action later on this week.

God bless,

Originally posted by mikewhitney

On the reader experience it seems that the evidence points to the "you" as being Romans Gentiles. When Paul speaks of "we" he seems to mean himself and these Gentiles.

I would add to the first sentence that they seem to be followers of Christ. I have often thought Paul means "we Jews" when he uses "we" in Romans - for example in Rom 3:9.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

If we read the letter today it seems like we can experience some of the same emotions such as when being accused of judging suddenly in Rom 2:1. Is there something in the first two chapters regarding culture or "speech in character" that would take away the shock of being accused of judging?

No, I think Paul was certainly making a rebuke in Rom 2. However, the "you" Paul refers to is singular, suggesting he is directing those comments at the interlocutor character he dialogues with in the letter. This is in contrast with Paul's use of the plural "you" to refer to his addressed audience (e.g. Rom 1:6). This, however, would certainly have been taken as a rebuke to all those to whom such a rebuke would have been relevant.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

And is this "speech in character" used by Paul in most of his letters so as to show this as a standard technique of Paul? This technique seems to be something for scholars and elites of the time leading up to and into the first century but Paul's audience is the common man. So it would be interesting to ascertain Paul's reason for following this style, if he was applying the "speech in character" format. Then it would also be important to see the whose voice Paul is speaking for in each passage proposed to be in this style.

Indeed, it is very important to establish whose "persona" is speaking. It was definitely a standard technique taught to those learning to argue and to write, and also those learning to read. Paul's letters were probably read aloud by someone who had learned this standard literary technique as part of their education. I'm not sure if there is anything particularly significant about Paul's use of this technique - it was just a common literary technique of the day.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

I think that the Rom 2:17-24 may be considered such a passage? Or the enigmatic passage of Rom 7:7-25 I think was described as such, but then Paul is speaking as himself and not as another person or he may transition from his condition before salvation into the state after salvation.

Paul dialogues extensively throughout Romans with one or more other characters. Here are some of my thoughts. He could be addressing such a character in Rom 2:1-5 and 2:17-25, with a more authorial voice employed in Rom 2:6-16. The start of Rom 3 is certainly a dialogue, although it is not clear who is saying what. He uses a more authorial, teaching tone from somewhere around Rom 3:10 to 3:26, before engaging again in dialogue. Then in 4:3 he offers a long authorial section. The interlocutor may be speaking in 6:1, 6:15, and 7:7a. 7:7b-25 marks a distinct use of voice which could suggest Paul is speaking in character. Indeed, Paul seems to address this character in 8:2, saying "... For the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set [you] free from the law of sin and of death." Note that many English translations mistakenly use "me" for some reason. There may be another section of rapid dialogue in Rom 8:31-Rom 8:39, and the interlocutor may be asking numerous questions in chapters 9-11. It's interested that Paul seems to use the interlocutor mainly to ask questions, whereas typically there would be more varied dialogue using speech-in-character.

My speculation on the use of speech-in-character above is not sure in my own mind. There are certainly times when it is not necessary to assume a change in speaker and the flow of the argument/dialogue is unaffected. However, my guess is that asking "rhetorical questions" was probably one of the ways in which these hypothetical characters were used.

I must get to sleep...

Originally posted by Whipartist

I understand where you're coming from. As you know through our previous exchanges, it seems to me that your metanarrative imposes an odd view to Romans 2. The natural way to take Romans 2, to me, seems like primarily a condemnation of Jews, not Gentile Christians. He first condemns Gentiles in chapter 1, then shifts over to condemn those who condemn. Presumably Jews. Reinforce with then turning positive again in vs. 13 when he then brings up the term "Gentiles" in vs. 14. And then addresses Jews directly in vs. 17 in a continuing negative tone. He ends the chapter with a condemnation of Jews.

I feel Paul is arguing for equality before God between Jews and Gentiles, on the basis of faith. That much is clear, but I feel you've gotten too specific in relation to what issues Paul's addressing. Sometimes real life is very complex.

Anyway, I'm not wanting to get too deep into this with you, as I'm sure you have a lot more you could say, having written all you have. Just wanted to say my 2 cents.

God bless, Ben

Hi Ben,
I've been neglecting acknowledging your response in this topic.

Now regarding the transition from chapter 1 to 2, you acknowledge that there is a condemnation occurring in chapter 1 and then there is a judgment of he who judges. It seems more natural to see that the one who speaks a condemnation in chapter 1, in unity with Paul's stating of these words of judgment, is the self same one that Paul is condemning. (Hope I'm not taking us around in circles by mentioning this portion of Romans.)
The use of a singular "you" rather than plural would seem to show that Paul is tactically addressing the the ones who agreed with the judgments of Rom 1:18-32 instead of addressing the whole group (even if the whole group was involved in judging). In this manner I can see the "speech in character" concept being applied so that Paul sends a shot across the bow of the ship rather than sinking the ship.

Also, I agree with those scholars who see that Paul was addressing only Roman Gentile believers. Again and again Paul talks writes such ideas as "those Jews" or "those who know the Law"(Rom 7:1) or "His people" (Rom 11:1). These phrases tend to show that those of Jewish heritage were not among those who were reading the letter.

It seems that the audience must first be clarified before much analysis is done. And some scoping of the purpose has to be done too.