Thank you for your kind replies and the time taken to do so. The presupposition you mentioned was also came to my attention in an early class session with Dr. Campbell. “Foundationalism” seems to be a primary concern with Campbell, that it is wrong and been used to persecute. However, I have noticed in the readings of many Biblical scholars a presupposition that seems to govern interpretation. For example, Richard Hays is concerned with supersessionism and to produce readings that do not convey supersessionism. We bring our twenty-first century concerns of what is “right” and feel that the Bible must support those presuppositions. I feel that this presupposition somewhat skews Hays’ scholarship, as does Campbell’s concern for foundationalism.

I am fascinated by these discussions in scholarship. However, I am concerned that “presuppositions” skew the fruits of exegesis and hermeneutics. And, though it is possible to debate issues in academia, they eventually make their way to the pulpit and to the practice of ministry and Christianity, for that matter.

Thank you again for your time. Blessings!

Of course his reading is possible. But history (and that’s what he wants us to do—historical reconstruction) is not about possibility, it is about probability, and probability is established by evidence. And the evidence must not come, or at least not come primarily, from the history of interpretation/reception, though that history can certainly identify problems.

I agree that Romans 1-3 has often been misread, and with serious negative theological consequences. But this in itself is not evidence for the existence of a Teacher.

I do think that we all bring presuppositions to the text. Dr. Campbell makes it quite clear in his book that he finds Rom 1:18-32 (and beyond) troubling in part because of its use to promote a fundamentalist gospel, it use in persecuting homosexuals, and its ability to be used for anti-Semitic purposes. Do these concerns affect his interpretation of the text and the historical situation? You bet. Do they cause him to misread the text, to commit the sin of underdetermination (his term; interpretation based on insufficient evidence)? That’s the question.

I will accept that there could be an issue of “tone,” somewhere, that Paul is criticizing; Rom 2 makes that clear. But the critique of tone can only be directed toward the Teacher if there is one.

You seem to imply that Dr. Campbell’s reading of 1:18-32 is the result of presuppositions he brings to the text.

However, I do not believe that one must argue that Paul does not believe the vices listed to be “sins” to come to the same reading that Campbell does. Certainly Paul would consider these vices “sins,” while charicaturally attacking the tone in which the those who are known to practice these vices (i.e. Gentiles) have been derrided by the “Teacher.”

Any thoughts?

I am still not getting the gist as to why Campbell’s reading of Romans 1-4 cannot be so. Yes, I see very little evidence for the reading, but still consider it plausible. Why would it not be so?

You know perfectly well what I mean. You have identified (and sometimes constructed) a problematic reading of Romans 1-3, presenting plenty of “evidence” for problems with that reading. But none of these is hard evidence for the existence of the Teacher(s), and all of them are thrown into question if your reading of chaps. 1-3 is shown to be a misreading. That is, there may be nothing to save/solve!

My point is this: you have identified a serious problem in the reception of Romans in certain quarters, but not in the text of Romans itself. You have still not answered my question: How can Paul use so much of chapters 1-3 (including 1:18-32) later in Romans if he is so passionately set against its theology? This seems utterly incomprehensible to me. Do you deny his adoption of the language of the early chapters in later chapters (e.g. 6, 8, 12-15)?

Having said all that, I will post on it more (as promised and as you have already heard), but perhaps it will soon be time to move on to what we agree on!!

The quick answer to all of this is evidence! Show me some textual evidence! His entire argument is from silence. Of course Phoebe could have interpreted 1:18-32 as Campbell argues, but (as I will say in the next post) there is evidence that Paul actually believes what he says in 1-3.

If you want to see evidence of false teachers, go to Galatians, 2 Corinthians 10-13, or Colossians. Is there really any doubt when Paul is combating false teachers? 6:17 is addressed to the issue of righteous/just living; the danger, if any, is probably from within, libertinism if you will, but at least not from “legalist” teachers like Campbell posits. 16:17 is too general to serve as the basis for a whole theory.

Thank you for this post. I agree that the ’speech-in-character’ label will probably not hold, but does that negate the essence of Campbell’s emphasis on the performative aspect of the letter? Whether he is right on the exact label do you think this has been overlooked in the history of the text?

Second, do you think there is any ‘problem’ with the reading Dr. Campbell has? Of course I understand you disagree with certain portions (1-3) but is it valid or invalid (if I may use logic terms)?

Finally, I was just wondering what sort of evidence would it take to convince that there was a teacher in Rome? It does seem that chapter 6.17 and 16.17 do seem to have something particular in mind or do you thing this is just a general apostolic warning?

Thank you,