MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7130585947 · doi:10.5287/ora-gajg6emz4

Liberated by the spirit from the law of sin and death: pre-Nicene Christian writers on νομος ‘law’ in Romans 7:21–8:2

2025· dissertation· en· W7130585947 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Artur Suski

Notice bibliographique

RevueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2025
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEuropean Law and Migration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Mots-clésInterpretation (philosophy)Meaning (existential)ScholarshipExtant taxonEarly ChristianityElement (criminal law)Biblical studiesNew Testament

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This dissertation is a study of the reception history of selected verses from Romans 7:21–8:2 in the first three centuries of the Common Era, up to and including Origen. The large range of interpretations of Romans 7:21–8:2 and its νόμος ‘law’ phrases in today’s scholarship has led to division among Pauline scholars. As yet, no comprehensive study on the interpretation of Rom. 7:21–8:2 by the early church has been undertaken and deployed in the study of this passage. This dissertation fills this lacuna by investigating four of the most pressing questions that continue to divide today’s Pauline scholars through the lens of the early writers: (1) whether the text should be understood as autobiographical (who is the ‘I’ of Rom. 7:21–8:2, and more broadly, 7:14–8:2?), (2) the meaning of νόμος in the νόμος phrases in Rom. 7:21–8:2, (3) the manner in which the νόμος phrases work on human beings, whether they are internal or external to the human being, and (4) to what extent did Greco-Roman thought impacted the early Christian understanding of this passage. The authors studied in this dissertation are Tertullian, Theodotus the Valentinian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. There are three primary reasons that Origen was chosen as the end terminus. Firstly, the proximity of Origen and those who wrote before him to the language and culture of Paul would have given them a privileged access to Paul’s world. Secondly, Origen, the latest of these authors, was the first extant Christian author to write biblical commentaries, and especially a commentary on Romans. Therefore, the dissertation examines the earliest readings of these verses before the authors’ interpretations were coloured by myriads of biblical commentaries. And thirdly, these authors wrote before the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity (325 CE), and thus before there was a stricter oversight of theological works; these authors would have been less constrained by authority when they wrote. These criteria helpfully limit the number of authors studied because the extant references to and comments on Rom. 7:21–8:2 significantly increases from the fourth century onwards, which would have made it unmanageable for a dissertation. This dissertation argues that the early writers were primarily preoccupied with promoting self-mastery (a virtuous life) and keeping the vices at bay when they made use of Rom. 7:21–8:2. It further argues that the authors were primarily interested in the struggle or combat between that which is worldly and that which is otherworldly as depicted in Rom. 7:23, the verse that was by far the most popular and most referred to by the four authors. Furthermore, although the four authors interpreted the νόμος phrases in similar ways, not one author understood every νόμος phrase in the same way as another author. In stark contrast to contemporary scholarship of Rom. 7:21–8:2, the dissertation demonstrates that not a single early author understood any of the occurrences of νόμος to refer to ‘the Law of Moses’ (the Torah). Still further, the earliest readers of Rom. 7:21–8:2 approached the text with predominantly Greek philosophical categories and these early authors––apart from Origen, who addressed nearly all of the questions that contemporary scholars raise––had no problems with this passage (none but Origen raised any concerns about any of the verses in their extant writings), including the identity of the ‘I’. Moreover, only Tertullian and Origen explicitly mentioned external forces as connected to ‘the law of sin’, whereas Theodotus and Clement do so too, although not when they addressed Rom. 7:21–8:2. Finally, all authors understood the ‘I’ to be applicable to Paul and to the audience of the writers, who were presumably fellow Christians, but possibly all people. The dissertation contributes to today’s scholarship by presenting for the first time a comprehensive study of the earliest extant readers of Rom. 7:21–8:2. The findings will enrich contemporary scholars’ readings of Rom. 7:23–8:2 and will shift the concerns and focus that scholars have concerning this passage, such as putting too much emphasis on the identity of the ‘I’ or reading all or most occurrences of νόμος ‘law’ as referring to the Law of Moses. The dissertation further contributes to scholarship by demonstrating that the primary use this passage had for the early authors was as a proof text for arguments concerning the interior struggle that every human feels when faces with the choice to embrace either worldly things or heavenly things, or in arguments to show the struggle between that which is good in the person (the body, created good by God) and that which is evil in the person (sin, or sinful and disordered thoughts, created by the freedom of the will to choose evil). As such, these findings lend further support to certain ways of reading Romans 7–8 in contemporary scholarship. The methodology used in this dissertation closely follows that of Jennifer Strawbridge: for each early Christian author who made use of the passage, I present a thorough analysis of the context in which it occurs, the manner in which it is used, and the distribution of its use throughout different genres. Finally, the dissertation is structured around the four early Christian authors, with emphasis on their interpretations in the light of the four significant dividing questions mentioned above.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,033

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,034
Communication savante0,0080,004
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Même sujetEuropean Law and MigrationTravaux en français237 207