腓立比书3章12节的称义条款在腓立比书3章2节至21节中的契合程度如何?语境连贯与真实性问题

Ryan Kristopher Giffin
{"title":"腓立比书3章12节的称义条款在腓立比书3章2节至21节中的契合程度如何?语境连贯与真实性问题","authors":"Ryan Kristopher Giffin","doi":"10.1177/20516770231193607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A handful of Greek manuscripts of Phil 3.12 (including P46 and 06) attest to a remarkable variant reading known as the justification clause, which has Paul claiming he had not already been justified (Οὐχ … ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι). Some have viewed the reading as problematic within Paul’s discourse in Phil 3, while others have viewed it as fitting nicely within this literary context. These divergent views have been held by scholars who agree on the secondary nature of the reading. Which view is correct? The objective of this article is to address that question by way of a reading of Phil 3:2-21 and to explore the implications for the authenticity question. The author concludes that the reading is not problematic but harmonizes well with its surrounding discourse, and that this is a point in favor of the authenticity of the reading.","PeriodicalId":354951,"journal":{"name":"The Bible Translator","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Well Does the Justification Clause of Philippians 3.12 Fit within Philippians 3.2-21? Contextual Coherence and the Question of Authenticity\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Kristopher Giffin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20516770231193607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A handful of Greek manuscripts of Phil 3.12 (including P46 and 06) attest to a remarkable variant reading known as the justification clause, which has Paul claiming he had not already been justified (Οὐχ … ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι). Some have viewed the reading as problematic within Paul’s discourse in Phil 3, while others have viewed it as fitting nicely within this literary context. These divergent views have been held by scholars who agree on the secondary nature of the reading. Which view is correct? The objective of this article is to address that question by way of a reading of Phil 3:2-21 and to explore the implications for the authenticity question. The author concludes that the reading is not problematic but harmonizes well with its surrounding discourse, and that this is a point in favor of the authenticity of the reading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bible Translator\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bible Translator\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770231193607\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bible Translator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770231193607","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

腓立比书3.12的一些希腊文手稿(包括P46和06)证明了一个被称为称义条款的显著变体,保罗声称他还没有被称义(Ο ς χ…ν ν δη δεδικα末路ωμαι)。有些人认为,在腓立比书第3章中,保罗的话语有问题,而另一些人则认为,它很适合这种文学背景。这些不同的观点一直由学者持有,他们同意阅读的次要性质。哪种观点是正确的?本文的目的是通过对腓立比书3:2-21的解读来解决这个问题,并探讨真实性问题的含义。作者的结论是,这篇阅读没有问题,但与周围的话语很好地协调,这是有利于阅读真实性的一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Well Does the Justification Clause of Philippians 3.12 Fit within Philippians 3.2-21? Contextual Coherence and the Question of Authenticity
A handful of Greek manuscripts of Phil 3.12 (including P46 and 06) attest to a remarkable variant reading known as the justification clause, which has Paul claiming he had not already been justified (Οὐχ … ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι). Some have viewed the reading as problematic within Paul’s discourse in Phil 3, while others have viewed it as fitting nicely within this literary context. These divergent views have been held by scholars who agree on the secondary nature of the reading. Which view is correct? The objective of this article is to address that question by way of a reading of Phil 3:2-21 and to explore the implications for the authenticity question. The author concludes that the reading is not problematic but harmonizes well with its surrounding discourse, and that this is a point in favor of the authenticity of the reading.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信