3 - Romans 1.16–4.25: what do we want to know?

Summary

To test the hypothesis that Rom. 1.16–4.25 may be something other than a justification account, we must formulate and test an alternative proposal. It should overcome the problems of the present basic conception and not introduce others. We concluded that the difficulties we encountered in exegesis might arise from our failure to understand correctly what Paul was trying to do rather than from Paul's failure to achieve his purpose. Where in our exegetical process could that kind of error arise?

We often describe the process in terms of the hermeneutical circle. In explicating a text, we move between the whole and the parts. Our understanding of the whole guides our understanding of the parts. Study of the parts then modifies our understanding of the whole, and so on. Study of the detail of Rom. 1.16–4.25 in chapter 2 has made us question our understanding of the whole. That is where we are most likely to be making the kind of mistake that would cause the problems we identified. Thus, we are looking for a new understanding of the whole, a new basic conception.

Our understanding of the whole of any text is complex, including, for instance our knowledge of the setting, the writer, the language. Two aspects are most important: what the text is about and what kind of writing we are reading. The mainstream debate has long been conducted within a consensus understanding of the whole of Rom. 1.16–4.25 so strong that it is rarely discussed.