哥林多前书》6.1-6:罗马法庭还是私人仲裁?

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Roi Ziv
{"title":"哥林多前书》6.1-6:罗马法庭还是私人仲裁?","authors":"Roi Ziv","doi":"10.1017/s0028688523000280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>First Corinthians 6.1–6 is consistently read as a Pauline criticism directed against members of the Pauline <span>ekklēsia</span> in Corinth, taking each other to Roman courts. I argue that this understanding of 1 Cor 6.1–6 is implausible in light of practices of Roman law in the provinces and in the colonies. Within a formal court procedure, the Corinthians would not have had the freedom to appoint their own judges, as Paul's language implies. I suggest instead that it is private arbitration which Paul criticises. Papyri dealing with private arbitration and mediation support this reading. Much of Paul's legal terminology in the passage is found in these papyri, making private arbitration a highly plausible suggestion. The suggested reading points to the community's good social ties with the pagan population in the city. It also depicts Paul as working within the framework of Roman law rather than against it. The article exemplifies the benefits of integrating up-to-date studies of Roman law in New Testament Studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First Corinthians 6.1–6: Roman Court or Private Arbitration?\",\"authors\":\"Roi Ziv\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0028688523000280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>First Corinthians 6.1–6 is consistently read as a Pauline criticism directed against members of the Pauline <span>ekklēsia</span> in Corinth, taking each other to Roman courts. I argue that this understanding of 1 Cor 6.1–6 is implausible in light of practices of Roman law in the provinces and in the colonies. Within a formal court procedure, the Corinthians would not have had the freedom to appoint their own judges, as Paul's language implies. I suggest instead that it is private arbitration which Paul criticises. Papyri dealing with private arbitration and mediation support this reading. Much of Paul's legal terminology in the passage is found in these papyri, making private arbitration a highly plausible suggestion. The suggested reading points to the community's good social ties with the pagan population in the city. It also depicts Paul as working within the framework of Roman law rather than against it. The article exemplifies the benefits of integrating up-to-date studies of Roman law in New Testament Studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Testament Studies\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Testament Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688523000280\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Testament Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688523000280","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

哥林多前书 6.1-6 一直被解读为保罗针对哥林多的 "教会"(ekklēsia)成员在罗马法庭上互相控告的批评。我认为,从罗马法在外省和殖民地的实践来看,对《哥林多前书》6.1-6 的这种理解是不可信的。在正式的法庭程序中,哥林多信徒不可能像保罗的语言所暗示的那样,有任命自己法官的自由。我认为保罗批评的是私人仲裁。涉及私人仲裁和调解的纸莎草文献支持这种解读。保罗在这段经文中使用的许多法律术语都出现在这些纸莎草纸中,因此私人仲裁是一个非常可信的说法。建议的读法指出了该社区与城里异教徒的良好社会关系。它还将保罗描绘成在罗马法律框架内工作,而不是反对罗马法律。这篇文章体现了将罗马法的最新研究纳入新约研究的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
First Corinthians 6.1–6: Roman Court or Private Arbitration?

First Corinthians 6.1–6 is consistently read as a Pauline criticism directed against members of the Pauline ekklēsia in Corinth, taking each other to Roman courts. I argue that this understanding of 1 Cor 6.1–6 is implausible in light of practices of Roman law in the provinces and in the colonies. Within a formal court procedure, the Corinthians would not have had the freedom to appoint their own judges, as Paul's language implies. I suggest instead that it is private arbitration which Paul criticises. Papyri dealing with private arbitration and mediation support this reading. Much of Paul's legal terminology in the passage is found in these papyri, making private arbitration a highly plausible suggestion. The suggested reading points to the community's good social ties with the pagan population in the city. It also depicts Paul as working within the framework of Roman law rather than against it. The article exemplifies the benefits of integrating up-to-date studies of Roman law in New Testament Studies.

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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: New Testament Studies is an international peer-reviewed periodical whose contributors include the leading New Testament scholars writing in the world today. The journal publishes original articles and short studies in English, French and German on a wide range of issues pertaining to the origins, history, context and theology of the New Testament and early Christianity. All contributions represent research at the cutting edge of the discipline, which has developed a wide range of methods. The journal welcomes submissions employing any such methods in recent years. The periodical embraces exegetical, historical, literary-critical, sociological, theological and other approaches to the New Testament, including studies in its history of interpretation and effects.
×
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