web space | free website | Business Hosting Services | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting

首頁Home: Philip Yim E-zine

My First Personal Web

Second Web



1_1-17_Lam 1_14-17_Cheung 1_16-17_Lam 1_18-32_Chu
1_18-32Yue 1_20-32_Fung 1_16-17_LaiWaiPor Cook, J. G., "The Logic and Language of Romans 1,20", Biblica, Vol. 75(1994) 494-517.
1_18-32LeungYukFung   ROMANS 1.18–2.29: A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION?
WILLIAM O. WALKER. New Testament Studies, Volume 45, Issue 04. October 1999. pp533-552
2_1-16_Fan 2_1-3_8Wong 2_1_Leung
3_9-20Chau 3_19-31_Chan 3_21-31_Yau 3_21-31Kwan2
4_1-25WongWW 4_1-25_WongShangYing Abraham in Romans 4
5_1-11Group 5_1-21_Wong 5_12-21Group  
5_1-11Chu 5_12-21NgYukQuan Aletti, J.N., "Romains 5,12-21. Logique, sens et fonction", Vol. 78(1997) 3-32.
6_1-14Lau 6_1-14CheungCC 6_1-23_Tai 6_1-23_GramAnalysis
6_1-14Tang 6_15-23_LeeKwokKeung
6_15-23Lau 6_15-23Cheung 6_15-23 6_15-23Chau
7_1 7_1-6Ng 7_7-25Yu The Relevance of the Identification of the “I” In Romans 7:7-25
7_14-25Chung   7_7-25LamTimFu
8_18_Li 8_1-30Chan 8_31-39WongCS 8_12-17Group


9_1-5ChanCH 9_30-10_21Ho2 9_30-10_21Lydia2 THE CAESURA BETWEEN ROMANS 9.30–3 AND 10.1–4
New Testament Studies, Volume 45, Issue 01. January 1999. pp141-147
11_1-36Fok 11_Chan
12 12_1-21_Leung 12_3-8FungSY 12_9-21LeungSY
12wholeChapter 12_1-2H 12_3-8Tsang 12_9-21LeungYM
12_9-21Lee2 12_9-21_LaiWaiPor
13_1-10Cheung 13_1-7_Yip 13_1-7TsuiCY 13_8-10Ngai
13_11-14_Chui 13_11-14ChoiCH 13_1-7_Lam
14_1-8Jak 14_13-23_Lok
15_14-33Chung 15_7-13PoonLH Byrne, B.., <<"Rather Boldly" (Rom 15,15): Paul's Prophetic Bid to Win the Allegiance of the Christians in Rome>>, Biblica, Vol. 74(1993) 83-96.

Scholars' Research:

Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-"New Perspective" Perspective

by Brenda Byrne Harvard Theological Review Issue: July, 2001 (firsr page; whole article in one page.)


There are, of course, other aspects from which one can interpret Romans theologically. Many particular passages and sections in the letter clamor for separate theological treatment.(47) The possibilities are greatly multiplied by approaches that sit less tightly to the historical-critical paradigm that has basically been operative here. What this paper has attempted to present is a particular theological vision emerging from the letter as a whole: the vision of a God who in the person of the Son faithfully engages in a costly and vulnerable intervention into the world in order, through the gift of the Spirit, to roll back human selfishness and empower human beings to live faithfully in and for the world.(48) In this, I would conclude, Paul has successfully addressed the issue of God's righteousness raised programmatically in the mode of a theodicy at the beginning of the letter (1:16; cf. 3:1-8). There is no cause to be "ashamed" of the gospel. It shows that God has been comprehensively faithful both as covenant partner of Israel and as Creator of the world (the subjective aspect of "God's righteousness"). For all its devastating indictment of human failure and sinfulness, including that of Israel, the gospel shows how through the action of the Son, continued in the Spirit, God restores human dignity, making human lives embodiments and instruments of the same divine faithfulness (the objective sense of "God's righteousness"). While applauding many aspects of the new perspective on Paul--indeed believing myself to stand fundamentally within it--I would hope that it will not lose sight of the more radical vision that previous generations have drawn from Paul's letter to Rome.

Aletti, J.N., "La presence d'un modele rhetorique en Romains: Son role et son importance", Biblica, Vol. 71(1990) 1-24.

This article examines the relevance of the rhetorical model in the case of the letter to the Romans. It shows that the presence of this model does not imply that the letter reproduces the standard dispositio (exordium, narratio, probatio, peroratio). On the contrary, Paul is quite capable of using the model in an original way; each section (1,18-4,25; 5,1-8,39; 9,1-11,36) of the first eleven chapters forms a rhetorical unit, and the various units are linked to each other by relaying propositiones (at least for Rom 1-8). While not extending the model to Rom 12-15, the article raises the question of the relationship between 9-11 to the first eight chapters. However, it does show that the extent of the propositio in 1,16-17 is far-reaching; these verses truly deserve the name of main propositio.

Aletti, J.N., "Comment Paul voit la justice de Dieu en Rm. Enjeux d'une absence de definition", Vol. 73(1992) 359-375.

This article examines a silence in Rom: although there is much there about God's justice, the Apostle does not give a short and precise definition of exactly what he means by "God's justice", neither at the beginning nor at the end of his argumentation. The answer is found in several places. This shows, most importantly, that Paul does not omit the definition of justice (human and divine) by an oversight. Rather, the reasons for his silence are mainly rhetorical. For him it is a question of modalities (the "how") and these alone show, and thus "define", divine justice.

Aletti, J.N., "Romains 2. Sa coherence et sa fonction", Vol. 77(1996) 153-177.


Aletti, J.N., "Romains 5,12-21. Logique, sens et fonction", Vol. 78(1997) 3-32.

Rom 5,12-21 - especially the eph' o clause of 5,12 - has been examined so many times that one might wonder whether there is anything new to say. But not all the components of the passage have been sufficiently taken into account by exegetes, especially its structure and dynamics, the expolitio of vv.13-14 and, last but not least, the synkrisis of vv.15-19. Besides, not enough attention has been paid to the Biblical and Jewish parallels. Only after the interrelationship of the rethorical and semantic elements of the passage has been adequately considered, can one see its relevance and function in the Letter to the Romans.

Gieniusz, A., <<Rom 7,1-6: Lack of Imagination? Function of the Passage in the Argumentation of Rom 6,1 – 7,6>>, Biblica, Vol. 74(1993) 389-400.

The following two articles are from NTA (http://members.aol.com/ntaweston/canon.html#int)

762. M. J. Cook, "The Jewish Scholar and New Testament Images of Judaism," Lutheran Theological Seminary Bulletin [Gettysburg, PA] 77 (4, '97) 21-41. The article explains and evaluates five Jewish avenues of approach to the NT: (1) Changes in Christianity's self-perception vis-…-vis Judaism occasioned corresponding adjustments in portrayals of Jesus' stance toward Jews and Judaism as presented in the Gospels. (2) The various ways in which Paul's theology was understood influenced the Gospel portraits of Jesus. (3) In the process of responding to challenges by Jewish opponents, emerging Christianity adjusted or added to Jesus-traditions teachings and nuances not authentic to Jesus' ministry. Accordingly, teachings ascribed to Jesus---and impinging on Jews and Judaism---should not be viewed only as an undifferentiated mass. (4) Study of the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns reveals that later writers intensified the anti-Judaism of their sources. And so one might plausibly argue that anti-Judaism decreases as we regress to Christian origins. (5) A major reason why passages in the Jewish Bible seem to predict the coming of Jesus is that Christian tradition came to model Jesus' image in conformity with Jewish scriptural imagery.---D.J.H.

763. J. C. de Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches," RelTheol/RelTeol 4 (3, '97) 190-207. Although many biblical narratives may not match the highly developed narrative composition of modern narratives, a literary approach to biblical narratives occupies its own position in the discipline of literary studies. Biblical narrative scholars should make an effort to situate their own literary enterprise within the broader literary field, and be aware of its strong points and weaknesses. Those who choose the traditional Anglo-American approach can be assured of its achievements in the past and can be enthusiastic about its prospects for the future.---C.R.M.

Review on New Perspective:

  1. Done by Chan Lai Ping, on“A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul ” by Mark M. Mattison