Talk:Epistle to the Romans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This entry incorporates text from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897.
 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] NPP

The introduction favors the New Perspective on Paul by NT Wright and Sanders etc. This is not the concensus of the evangelical or secular community. I would cut out the nt wright quote from the title paragraph 206.155.48.254 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasons you gave for cutting it out seem to be primarily that you don't like it. That's hardly a good reason for cutting a quote by a leading scholar. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Many scholars have published books this year debating the NPP. Whether it is right or wrong doesnt belong in this article. WP:UNDO this must follow wikipedia's undue weight rule 206.155.48.254 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The intro doesn't say whether it's right or wrong, it simply puts it out there. And NT Wright is hardly the type of person whose views would fall under "undue weight" in an article on Romans. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romans Road

I think there is probably a case for deleting the stuff about the "Romans Road". However, in case this is a well-known concept, I have moved it here to give others the opportunity for editing. Deb 19:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, and maybe linked to another stub article. 206.155.48.254 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

User:CheeseDreams added the NPOV disclaimer to this article, which says "Please see its talk page." So what elements are disputed? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 01:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I find it a bit disturbing that the entire "history" section only quotes the bible. What kind of scholarship is this?

It does not only quote the Bible. It is lacking references for the content (though accurate they are) - the "Bible quotes" are references to where in the letter and in the rest of the NT certain people or events are referenced. Str1977 (smile back) 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current dispute

Could everyone start using the talk page instead of reverting for a little while? Maybe we could hash out some of the differences here. Gamaliel 09:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The gospel transforms believers

I suggest the following for the "The gospel transforms believers" section:

In Romans 7:1, we see that humans are under the law while we live; however, Jesus' death on the cross makes believers dead to the law (Romans 7:4). In chapter 12 through the first part of chapter 15, Paul outlines how the gospel transforms us and the behaviour that results from such a transformation. He goes on to tell us how we should live, in these passages: not under the law, but under the grace of God. If we live by what the Bible says (Romans 12:9-21, Romans 13:8-10) and love everyone, study the scriptures (and share them with others), we are not going to need to sin. As Paul says in Romans 13:10, "love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of law". This should not be taken that Paul is telling us that love is all that matters; without first accepting Christ's gift (Romans 8:1, Romans 5:1), we are still under the bondage of sin (Romans 5:12-17) and cannot experience that love.

The current section is very shallow, to say the least, and the way it was previously didn't even make any sense (the concluding verses section was there until I moved it). I don't feel that I need to defend the paragraph above since I'm simply quoting what Paul himself wrote.Joshuagross 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, I'm not sure that first person plural is the proper tense for this article. "We see," " we live," "we are"--all of these constructions are more exhortive than encyclopedic.
Further, any substantive exegesis of Paul's message will be POV; Christians disagree as to the proper interpetation of Romans. For example, you believe that Romans 12 through Romans 15 "oulines how the gospel transforms us and the behavior that results from such a transformation." Such an interpretation, while understandable, is not the only possible one. For example, others would see those chapters as instead containing instructions on how to live. Such differences in interpretation go to the heart of disputes between Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand and Reformed Protestants on the other on the nature of justification.
Rather than stir up a hornet's nest of what the "right" interpretation of any given passage is, I believe the more encyclopedic option is to briefly summarize Paul's statements and leave the interpretation to the reader.--Jbull 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You make an excellent point about the tense. Refarding the interpretations, however, there is no reason we can't include some common interpretations, provided they are properly sourced and not presented as the only possible interpretation. Gamaliel 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
So long as every editor's personal interpretation is given space and clearly labeled as POV, your suggestion is fine with me.--Jbull 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me... I agree about the tense and not presenting it as the only POV. I'll work on it. Joshuagross 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I modified the tense and cleaned it up a bit more. How should the POV be labeled? The others aren't clearly labeled as POV either, so either all of them should be, or none.Joshuagross 06:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible quotations

Just wondering if there is any policy for using a particular translation for bible quotes. I was reading the article and noticed that quotes are taken from the King James Authorized version. Are other contemporary (and more accurate) translations a possibility or at least a reference after the quote to the translation used.

Most translations are copywrited so they usually cannot be used in a publication that is sold for profit or used at all except for fair use, unless there is prior written permission. But I think it is quite biased to say that the KJV is NOT accurate. It's language is outdated but the MS may be more accurate than those that underlay the contemporary translations such as the NASB or NIV which use the Alexandrian Critical Text. You can learn about the manuscript debate on Wikipedia, but I prefer the Byzantine Majority Text myself.

[edit] Tone of Introduction

The poetic formulation of the quote employed in the introduction is severely out of place in this encylopedic article. Both the metaphor and the use of 'we' are problematic. Can someone second to rewrite this? Audioweevil 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It it way out in left field as far as reference writing goes. It reads like a pamphlet one might have sent to their mailbox. Not wiki-like at all. (Drunktrumpet (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] General Characterisation

The General Characterisation seems a random section, especially the stuff about the main messages of Romans being Foreskin and diet. Could somebody do a little better? 80.42.112.73 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute: Catholic View and Bias

After reading the section on Protestant and Catholic interpretations, it seems that the Catholic view is not presented in a balanced way. In the Protestant section, their interpretation is presented first, followed by a "Critique" section in which their view is criticised and then that criticism is "refuted". In the Catholic "Critique" section, their view is criticised and then that criticism is supported with two further paragraphs of Bible quotation. I have to say, this article reads a bit like Evangelical propaganda. I have to agree with the first comment on this page--there is no scholarship here, only biblical pericopes thrown about like hand grenades. InFairness 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm a scholar and a christian yet I see no NPOV problem....actually the real problem I see is that its not obvious from the article precisely what the difference between the catholic and protestant views are....This needs to be spelled out better before we can even talk about which pov the article currently favours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.169.59 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an important question I am sure and can often mean the difference, for an individual christian in the pews, between a fearful unhappy person who feels that acceptance is performance based and that they are never quite good enough (who will in turn be critical and unaccepting of others); an overconfident, smug person who feels that no matter how badly they treat others forgiveness is always available; and a confident well balanced person who feels accepted despite their failings and acts in an accepting and forgiving way towards others. The faith/works question in this article, however, is presented in petty, simplistic terms and smacks of caricature. Ultimately these trivialised arguments tell us very little about the letter to the Romans--Sineaste (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] History, first paragraph

I am having trouble making sense of the first paragraph of the "History" section.

"the expulsion of many Jews from Rome because of Christian disturbances around AD 49." Ok, there were disturbances in Rome involving Christians, so the Roman authorities, who regarded Christians as a kind of Jew, expelled all Jews.

".. Nero, allowed the Jews back into Rome." Ok, they had been behaving and so were allowed back. I assume that this included the Christians.

"... Gentile Romans now had a reason to hate Jews .., with an easy theological rationalization that Jews were no longer God's people." This is what makes no sense to me. The expulsion might give non-Christian Jews a reason to dislike Christians. But why should the return make anyone hate Jews?

My guess is that my problem is connected with terminology. In the eyes of Claudius, Christians were a kind of Jew. I cannot guess what is meant by "Gentile Romans" - at that date most Romans were pagan, so "Gentile" might mean pagan, or it might mean Christian.

Also, the footnote references seem to be wrongly numbered, the little 2 leads to _note-1, etc. Maproom (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. This assertion is unsubstiantiated and illogical and should be removed. The question of the jewish expulsion from Rome, however, is very relevant to the purpose and historical situation of Romans and this could be expanded further. --Sineaste (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is not that the assertion is unsubstantiated (thought it may well be for all I know), but that it makes no sense. Here is my latest guess as to what it is trying to say: "After disturbances involving Christians, Claudius expelled Christians and Jews from Rome. On his death, Nero let the Jews, but not the Christians, return. This marked the beginning of a permanent rift between Christians and Jews." But I have no expertise in this field, I am just trying to make sense of an incoherent paragraph. I wish someone who knows this stuff would sort it out. Maproom (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coldfire has now modified this section so that it makes sense. Thank you, Coldfire. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Critique - Protestant view

This says something to the effect that Protestants would say doing good works render faith useless! That's a completely ridiculous view, in my opinion, and more importantly, not something I've heard any educated protestant say. --NZUlysses (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Often cited is the proposed conflict with the Epistle of James which expressly declares that good works are required in addition to faith for salvation. There is not even any conflict here (not that the fact that some people claim there is shouldn't be cited). Romans is states that works of the law won't justify men before God because no one keeps the whole law (Romans 3:20). Without faith there is no justification because no one is righteous (Romans 3:10, John 3:18). James states plainly that works justify a man with faith (James 1:21-27 & 2: 14-26), not men under the Law (which is what Paul is talking about in Romans). So, while this fact of dispute definitely needs to be in there, it needs to be worded correctly. Perhaps just add a notice that the criticism has been met with an answer by Christians. (ApostleJoe (talk)

I have strong misgivings about painting the faith-vs-works issue as a Catholic/Protestant divide at all. Protestants still debate among themselves how both faith and works are part of justification. I can't speak for Catholics but I would imagine there's disagreement among them as well. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)