救赎的人还是不被救赎的人?阿奎那《超级书信集》中罗马书7:14-25的解读。泡利和罗马书选集及当代训诫

Piotr Goniszewski
{"title":"救赎的人还是不被救赎的人?阿奎那《超级书信集》中罗马书7:14-25的解读。泡利和罗马书选集及当代训诫","authors":"Piotr Goniszewski","doi":"10.12775/BPTH.2018.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the pericope of Rom 7:14‒25, especially on the problem of understanding the rhetorical ‘I’ in Aquinas’s Ad Rom, as well as in selected twentieth-century biblical commentaries. The first part of the article offers the analysis of Aquinas’s reflections on Rom 7:14‒25, where we find an exegetical explanation of the pronoun ‘I’ in Ad Rom. The second part includes the opinions of contemporary biblical scholars on the rhetorical ‘I’ of the pericope. The first scholar is Karl Barth whose well-known monograph Romerbrief  is an example of the philosophical (or anti-philosophical) and theological approaches to St Paul’s epistle. The second scholar is Douglas J. Moo, who represents classical historical-critical exegesis of Romans.","PeriodicalId":37181,"journal":{"name":"Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Men Redeemed or Unredeemed? Interpretations of Rom 7:14‒25 in Aquinas’s Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos lectura and in Contemporary Exegesis\",\"authors\":\"Piotr Goniszewski\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/BPTH.2018.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article focuses on the pericope of Rom 7:14‒25, especially on the problem of understanding the rhetorical ‘I’ in Aquinas’s Ad Rom, as well as in selected twentieth-century biblical commentaries. The first part of the article offers the analysis of Aquinas’s reflections on Rom 7:14‒25, where we find an exegetical explanation of the pronoun ‘I’ in Ad Rom. The second part includes the opinions of contemporary biblical scholars on the rhetorical ‘I’ of the pericope. The first scholar is Karl Barth whose well-known monograph Romerbrief  is an example of the philosophical (or anti-philosophical) and theological approaches to St Paul’s epistle. The second scholar is Douglas J. Moo, who represents classical historical-critical exegesis of Romans.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/BPTH.2018.014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/BPTH.2018.014","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

这篇文章的重点是罗马书7:14-25,特别是在理解阿奎那的Ad-Rom中的修辞“I”的问题,以及在20世纪的圣经评论中。文章的第一部分分析了阿奎那对罗马书7:14-25的反思,在那里我们发现了对《阿罗马书》中代词“I”的训释解释。第一位学者是卡尔·巴特,他的著名专著《罗默布里夫》是圣保罗书信的哲学(或反哲学)和神学方法的一个例子。第二位学者是Douglas J.Moo,他代表了罗马人的经典历史批判注释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Men Redeemed or Unredeemed? Interpretations of Rom 7:14‒25 in Aquinas’s Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos lectura and in Contemporary Exegesis
This article focuses on the pericope of Rom 7:14‒25, especially on the problem of understanding the rhetorical ‘I’ in Aquinas’s Ad Rom, as well as in selected twentieth-century biblical commentaries. The first part of the article offers the analysis of Aquinas’s reflections on Rom 7:14‒25, where we find an exegetical explanation of the pronoun ‘I’ in Ad Rom. The second part includes the opinions of contemporary biblical scholars on the rhetorical ‘I’ of the pericope. The first scholar is Karl Barth whose well-known monograph Romerbrief  is an example of the philosophical (or anti-philosophical) and theological approaches to St Paul’s epistle. The second scholar is Douglas J. Moo, who represents classical historical-critical exegesis of Romans.
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
Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia
Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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