개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans 7:25-8:2 faces a number of difficulties in both theological and literary aspects. Among many difficulties the question of coherence between the outcry of victory in v 25a and the statement of v 25b, and the problem of interpretation of v 25b have called forth the attentions of many Pauline scholars. Especially the question how to interpret v 25b in the present context has provoked serious argumentations.
According to the traditional interpretation of the church, v 25 is the summary descriptions of the nature of christian existence. But how a person who was saved through grace can dare to say "in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin"? To explain away such problems many solutions have been presented throughout the long history of biblical interpretation.
The present article classifies the solutions in terms of literary and theological criteria, and evaluates them critically. The literary solution includes all attempts to interpret the present passage in terms of omissions and transpositions of the text. The theological solutions have mainly to do with the question whether the person "I" in the passage represents pre- or post-conversion existence.
Those who chose the literary solution to make the passage intelligible by omitting phrases or verses include Methodius, R Bultmann, A. Nygren. Such interpreters like Chrisostom, C. K Barrett, J. D. G. Dunn, R Bultmann, chose the transposition of verses to make the passage sensible. But both approaches do not present adequate manuscript proofs, which is in fact a critical problem of the approaches.
Instead, a number of interpreters have attempted to solve the problem in terms of theological approach, which is, to define the "I" in the passage as a post or pre-conversion person. Those who support the post-conversion person include Marcion, Valentinus, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, A. Nygren, K. Barth, etc. By contrast, those who take the opposite view, i.e., the "I" of the passage represents a pre-conversion person, are J. Arminius, W. G. Kuemmel, E. Kaesemann, etc.
In defining the "I" in the passage both anthropology and soteriology play a main role. In accordance with the Protestant theological view the majority of the Protestant biblical scholars regard the "I" as a pre-conversion person, which view I also support.
According to the traditional interpretation of the church, v 25 is the summary descriptions of the nature of christian existence. But how a person who was saved through grace can dare to say "in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin"? To explain away such problems many solutions have been presented throughout the long history of biblical interpretation.
The present article classifies the solutions in terms of literary and theological criteria, and evaluates them critically. The literary solution includes all attempts to interpret the present passage in terms of omissions and transpositions of the text. The theological solutions have mainly to do with the question whether the person "I" in the passage represents pre- or post-conversion existence.
Those who chose the literary solution to make the passage intelligible by omitting phrases or verses include Methodius, R Bultmann, A. Nygren. Such interpreters like Chrisostom, C. K Barrett, J. D. G. Dunn, R Bultmann, chose the transposition of verses to make the passage sensible. But both approaches do not present adequate manuscript proofs, which is in fact a critical problem of the approaches.
Instead, a number of interpreters have attempted to solve the problem in terms of theological approach, which is, to define the "I" in the passage as a post or pre-conversion person. Those who support the post-conversion person include Marcion, Valentinus, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, A. Nygren, K. Barth, etc. By contrast, those who take the opposite view, i.e., the "I" of the passage represents a pre-conversion person, are J. Arminius, W. G. Kuemmel, E. Kaesemann, etc.
In defining the "I" in the passage both anthropology and soteriology play a main role. In accordance with the Protestant theological view the majority of the Protestant biblical scholars regard the "I" as a pre-conversion person, which view I also support.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 문학적인 방법
Ⅲ. 신학적인 해결방안
Ⅳ. 나오는 말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Reflection on Mark 3:13 19 and the Debate on the Purpose of Theological Education
Journal of Christian Education & Information Technology
2007 .04
-
ARE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS CAPABLE OF LEARNING AT AN ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL?
기독교교육 논총
2013 .01
-
기독교 신학여정에서의 반전
신학연구
2010 .12
-
영어의 품사 전환 연구
영어영문학연구
2004 .01
-
神學과 科學과의 새로운 對話(Ⅰ)
신학전망
1992 .09
-
지문먼저 읽기와 문제먼저 읽기 전략 차이가 읽기시험 수행에 미치는 영향
언어과학연구
2012 .06
-
한신대학교 신학대학원 목사후보생 신학교육의 교과운영 현황과 교과개발을 위한 제안
신학연구
2009 .06
-
사도행전의 ‘우리’ 대목에 관한 새로운 고찰
신학전망
2011 .12
-
정보화 시대의 새로운 신학교육 : 통합 지식적 관점을 중심으로
기독교교육정보
2008 .08
-
평화를 위한 코메니우스의 신학과 교육사상과의 관계성¹)
기독교교육정보
2003 .04
-
신학교육의 모델들 : 서울 모델을 향하여
한국기독교신학논총
2010 .07
-
신학교육과 대화적 패러다임
기독교교육정보
2001 .04
-
On the Optimal Text Length of Reading Comprehension Tests
영어영문학연구
2013 .01
-
기독교 성인을 위한 신학교육
기독교교육정보
2004 .10
-
신학교육의 목적과 커리큘럼 개선
기독교교육정보
2008 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
칼빈의 “첫째 아담-마지막 아담” 모형론 : 로마서 5장과 고린도전서 15장에 대한 주석을 중심으로
김선영
한국기독교신학논총
2013
.04
본문의 구조와 사본학 : 고린도전서 14:34-35 연구
신현우
신학지남
2014
.12
고린도전서 9장의 주제 : 담화분석적 방법
배종열
개신논집
2014
.09
고린도전서 11:2-14:40에 나타난 바울의 수사학 : 영적 자유인가? 구조적 질서인가?
윤소정
신약논단
2008
.12
방언은 불신앙의 표식인가? : 고린도전서 14:20-25를 중심으로
김동수
한국기독교신학논총
2009
.01
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-051-003311184