Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell by Chris Tilling

Author:Chris Tilling [Tilling, Chris]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
Published: 2014-05-05T00:00:00+00:00

11

Rereading Romans 1–3 Apocalyptically

A Response to Douglas Campbell’s “Rereading Romans 1–3”330

Brittany E. Wilson

In my response to Douglas Campbell’s essay “Rereading Romans 1–3,” I want to begin by way of disclaimer. Overall, I am very sympathetic to Campbell’s reading of Paul. Like Campbell, I read Paul apocalyptically, and I agree that Romans 5–8 lies at the heart of Paul’s apocalyptic soteriology.331 Moreover, I also reject what Campbell calls a “prospective” reading of Paul, or what he elsewhere terms “Arianism,” foundationalism, contractualism, and justification discourse. Such readings lead, inter alia, to an individualistic view of salvation in which the gospel is not freely given, but necessitated because of human sinfulness. I applaud Campbell for highlighting the numerous problems with this traditional Western interpretation of Paul, and I agree that Paul himself does not advocate a forensic soteriology.

In my response, however, I will don the role of Campbell’s “opponent.” I will begin by “speaking in character” as a critic of Campbell’s exegetical argument. Here I will identify the main critique New Testament scholars have leveled against Campbell’s exegesis of Romans 1–3 and contend that “Rereading Romans 1–3” does not resolve this critique. I will then speak more specifically as Campbell’s “apocalyptic opponent,” assuming the voice of an apocalyptic interpreter of Paul who is, in my opinion, Campbell’s most formidable adversary: Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Although Gaventa has written a number of important articles on Romans and Paul’s apocalyptic soteriology, Campbell does not engage her work at any length.332 Like Campbell, Gaventa notes the problem of reading Romans 1–3 forensically. Unlike Campbell, Gaventa’s solution to this “problem” is to read Romans 1–3 apocalyptically.333 In other words, Gaventa maintains that Paul is consistently apocalyptic in Romans 1–3 itself and that he speaks in his own voice throughout these opening chapters. I will thus suggest that Gaventa’s work not only addresses the problem of Paul’s so-called forensic soteriology in Romans 1–3, but that it also solves the “problem” of Campbell’s own “solution”: namely that Romans 1:18—3:20 represents the perspective of Paul’s “opponent,” not Paul himself.

Yet before turning to Gaventa’s solution, let us start first with Campbell’s solution and the resulting problems. According to Campbell, Romans 1:18—3:20 represents “the opponent’s” forensic soteriology, whereas Romans 5–8 represents Paul’s apocalyptic soteriology. More specifically, Romans 1:18–32 reflects Paul’s usage of “speech-in-character” through which he presents his opponent’s soteriological position. In Romans 2:1—3:20, Paul then universalizes this position and exposes its logical absurdities. Romans 3:21–26 finally unveils Paul’s own perspective on soteriology, which Romans 5–8 discloses in full. Two interrelated issues, however, emerge with Campbell’s claim that Romans 1:18—3:20 does not in its entirety represent Paul’s own perspective.

The first issue concerns Paul’s employment of “speech-in-character” in Romans 1:18–32 (and thus Paul’s employment of Socratic argumentation in Romans 1:18—3:20 as a whole). “Speech-in-character,” or prosōpopoeia, is a well-known rhetorical device in the ancient world, but the question is whether Paul is in fact employing this device here and whether his audience would have recognized this device if he is. If this is an

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.