Paul and the Stoic Theory of oikeíōsis: A Response to Troels Engberg-Pedersen

Three points serve as the backbone of Engberg-Pedersen’s interpretation of the social kind of oikeiōsis in Stoicism: (1) rejection of the role of the cosmic nature as a normative premise in oikeiōsis; (2) exclusive stress on the self-reflexive dimension in oikeiōsis; (3) taking the change in one’s v...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Kim, Seon Yong 1972- (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Brill 2016
Dans: Novum Testamentum
Année: 2016, Volume: 58, Numéro: 1, Pages: 71-91
Sujets non-standardisés:B Stoicism Engberg-Pedersen Comparison oἰκείωσις Paul
Accès en ligne: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Édition parallèle:Non-électronique
Description
Résumé:Three points serve as the backbone of Engberg-Pedersen’s interpretation of the social kind of oikeiōsis in Stoicism: (1) rejection of the role of the cosmic nature as a normative premise in oikeiōsis; (2) exclusive stress on the self-reflexive dimension in oikeiōsis; (3) taking the change in one’s view of oneself and other people to be the heart of oikeiōsis. However, none of these is convincing when examined closely. We have also seen that Engberg-Pedersen’s treatment of Paul is insufficient both in its methodological refinement and in exegesis. Engberg-Pedersen’s comparison is dyadic and imbalanced. Moreover, it fails to grasp the complexities and intricacies of Paul’s view of the Jewish customs, the Law, scriptural traditions, and other culturally conditioned social norms.
ISSN:1568-5365
Contient:In: Novum Testamentum
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/15685365-12341514