woensdag 12 december 2012

Review JETS door Moo van Jewett - Romans - Hermeneia


JETS 50/4 (December 2007)

Romans: A Commentary. By Robert Jewett. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007,lxx + 1140 pp.

Pauline scholars have eagerly anticipated Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans for many years. His ten articles, popular commentary (Romans [Cokesbury Basic Bible Commentary 22; Nashville: Graded Press, 1988]), and semi-popular monograph on tolerance (Christian Tolerance: Paul’s Message to the Modern Church [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982]) have whetted our appetites, as have his many lively contributions to the Seminar on Paul at Society of Biblical Literature meetings over the years. This commentary does not disappoint. In keeping with current commentary trends, it is lengthy (over a thousand pages of double-column type) but without bloat: there are remarkably few wasted words (although I did note an obvious editorial doublet on p. 512). In keeping with the Hermeneia series, the commentary is rich in primary source references, densely documented, and focused on the rhetorical nature of the letter (one thinks in this regard especially of Betz on Galatians). Especially noteworthy and indicative of a maturity of judgment that only time can produce is the clear and consistently applied “thesis” of the commentary. Jewett summarizes it in these words on the first page: “Paul writes to gain support for a mission to the barbarians in Spain, which requires that the gospel of impartial, divine righteousness revealed in Christ be clarified to rid it of prejudicial elements that are currently dividing the congregations in Rome.” Jewett promises that he will use this rhetorical strategy as a lens to interpret “each verse and paragraph” in the letter, a promise that he comes close to fulfilling. Jewett argues that this kind of unifying purpose matches the nature of ancient rhetoric and makes his approach preferable to the multiple “reasons for Romans” that many commentators are content to work with.

Jewett’s focus on the importance of the impending Spanish mission for the letter is not entirely new (Dodd and others have suggested much the same; cf. 15:24), but he uses recent research into the nature of Roman Spain to cast Paul’s request for Roman aid for that mission in a new light. This research suggests that the Spain in Paul’s day had few Jewish residents, that the inhabitants spoke mainly Latin and indigenous languages, and that they continued to resist efforts to bring Spain fully under the aegis of imperial Rome. Each of these factors posed special problems for a Pauline missionary enterprise. Paul normally used the synagogue as an initial base for evangelism. He proclaimed the gospel in Greek; a mission to Spain would require, for the first time in history, “translation” of the message. Paul needed help from the Roman Christians to mount an evangelistic campaign in Spain that had any chance of succeeding. Yet Paul was worried that any support that Roman Christians might give would be tainted by their own tendencies toward “imperialistic behavior” toward one another. Jewett follows the majority of recent Romans interpreters in thinking that the tensions between the “weak” and the “strong” (14:1–15:13) were based mainly in differences over the continuing importance of the Torah and that the situation resulting from the expulsion of leading Jews and Jewish Christians by Claudius in ad 49 exacerbated these tensions. He estimates that the Roman Christian community was split into eight to ten house and tenement churches (“tenement” because the social status of many Roman Christians would have required that they meet in “slum” apartments). Whatever the cause of the tensions in the community, the result was that the Christians in Rome were caught up in the typical Roman competition for “honor,” a competition that flew in the face of the unifying and impartial righteousness of God revealed in Christ and that also burdened the gospel for the Spanish “barbarians” with a load of Roman imperial baggage. So Paul writes with the initial goal of unifying the Roman Christians around the countercultural gospel of Christ and with the ultimate goal of securing appropriate support for the Spanish mission.

I have identified two features of Jewett’s overall interpretation of Romans that require comment before I move on to other matters. First, a particular strength of Jewett’s commentary is its focus on the social and cultural context of first-century Roman Christianity. Many commentators on Romans (including this one) tend to neglect this social setting, sometimes out of simple ignorance. Jewett, however, obviously knows this first-century world very well and thinks that it is vital for understanding what is going on in Romans. He may be right, but I have two quibbles. First, Jewett tends to suggest that his view of Romans as rhetoric directed to specific cultural circumstances stands in opposition to any view of Romans as an “abstract theological document” (I quote from p. 46, but this is not an isolated comment; its substance is repeated throughout the commentary). However, Jewett is fighting against a nonexistent foe: I know of no serious interpreter on Romans who would want to argue that Romans features “abstract” theology. Yet most interpreters would (rightly, I think) insist that Romans is thoroughly theological—and that its theology does not stand in contrast to the letter’s specific rhetorical concern but is, in fact, the engine that drives that rhetoric.

Second, I have to wonder whether the pursuit of honor was as important as Jewett suggests it was. He may be right about the importance of this matter in the culture as a whole, but there are many places in the commentary where I have the sense that this issue is being imposed on the text rather than read out of it. Of course, any serious attempt at historical interpretation will involve a certain amount of imaginative reading in light of the larger culture. However, I would like to see a bit more textual support for Jewett’s particular construal. A second key feature of Jewett’s approach that I identified above is the ultimate concern about the Spanish mission. An obvious objection to this reading of the letter is the very muted nature of the references to Spain. Paul’s intention to travel to Spain is mentioned only twice in the letter (15:24, 28) and his desire to secure support from the Romans is only hinted at in the form of the verb he uses to describe his visit to Rome in 15:24. Jewett is aware of this problem and answers it by arguing that the matter was a delicate one that could not easily be broached in the letter and that Paul was leaving it to Phoebe, the carrier of the letter (16:1–2) to elaborate (p. 89). Jewett also notes that these references to Spain come in the letter’s “peroration” (his rhetorical identification of 15:14–16:23) and that the peroration was the place where the rhetor would bring the argument to a climax and incite the readers to action. However, the imminent trip to Jerusalem receives more attention in the peroration than Spain does. With all allowance for the constraints of diplomacy, then, it remains surprising that Spain does not feature more prominently in the letter if support for a mission there really were its ultimate goal.

A particularly valuable aspect of this commentary is its extremely careful analysis of the literary structure of Romans. Jewett views its macro-structure against the background of his identification of the letter as an “ambassadorial letter” (mixed with other genres as well), identifying five major parts: exordium (1:1–12); narratio (1:13–15); propositio (1:16–17); proof (in four parts: 1:18–4:25; 5:1–8:39; 9:1–11:36; 12:1–15:13); peroration (15:14–16:16, 21–23). I will leave to experts on these matters the evaluation of this structure, although I confess to being somewhat mystified about just what “proof ” in this genre might mean and how 12:1–15:13 might constitute part of that “proof.” However, Jewett’s commentary is especially helpful in its careful literary analysis of each paragraph of the letter. He identifies the various components of each paragraph (often singling out pieces of tradition that he thinks Paul is quoting and adapting) and singles out various literary devices that Paul has used to make his argument compelling. If there is any criticism to be made on this score, it is simply that this laudable focus on literary structure tends to take the place of a clear analysis of the major purpose of paragraphs and their contribution to the overall argument of the letter. The commentary is also notable for its very careful analysis of textual variants, with a full citation of witnesses and detailed discussion.

Reviews of books that are as long and detailed as Jewett’s Romans must inevitably be quite subjective in what they talk about. I could use many thousands of words outlining and critiquing Jewett’s interpretations of particular verses and paragraphs. Instead I will comment on three general matters that caught my attention. First, Jewett’s stance with respect to one of the dominant directions in recent Pauline studies, the so-called “New Perspective,” is interesting. Indeed, one of the remarkable aspects of the commentary is Jewett’s general disregard of the movement per se. Whether this reflects a somewhat characteristic “Germanic” approach to the movement—ignore it because it is just an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon—or whether it reflects a studied decision on Jewett’s part to minimize the movement by ignoring it is not entirely clear. Of course, Jewett interacts with broadly “New Perspective” interpretations in numerous places—mainly those found in Dunn’s commentary (N. T. Wright’s commentary in the New Interpreter’s Bible is strangely missing from the bibliography). He sometimes agrees with these views but, on the whole, I think it is fair to say, is critical of the New Perspective. One manifestation of his distance from this movement is his tendency to find nomos in many key passages referring not to Torah but to “law” in general. (He sometimes argues this on the dubious basis of an anarthrous nomos.) Jewett here, and in his interpretation of Paul’s critique of nomos in certain texts as involving a “yearning for honor” by obeying it and forcing it on others (e.g. Rom 5:20 [pp. 387–88]; 7:5 [p. 436]), can be seen as the heir to the broad Bultmann/Käsemann tradition of interpretation.

Second, Jewett’s treatment of universalism in Romans is both worth noting andindicative of a larger  ethodological concern. He rightly notes the importance of the language of “each” and “all” in the letter, but then goes farther than most do by insisting that the words have an extensive and unbounded reference in key texts. Romans 3:24 implies that “all will now be saved” (p. 281); “the expectation of universal salvation in [Rom 11:32] is indisputable” (p. 712); and Rom 11:26 refers to “all members of the house of Israel, who, without exception, [will] be saved” (p. 702). Jewett thinks that exegetical integrity demands these conclusions; and, of course, each claim can be debated at this level (I would disagree in each case). Yet what is more troubling about Jewett’s approach is that he tends in these contexts to acknowledge and dismiss without any argument the problems his conclusions might create for “systematic theology.” However, these texts create problems not just for systematic theology but for the coherence of Paul’s own teaching. Jewett’s silence on the implications of his interpretation of texts in Romans for Paul’s theology (let alone biblical or systematic theology) typifies the commentary and is clearly a deliberate strategy designed to analyze Romans as a discrete piece of rhetorical communication. I think he reacts too strongly at this point to his perception that generations of theologians have misinterpreted Romans by muggling into the letter their own agendas. However, in any case, Jewett’s commentary is not the place to go for those who want to read Romans theologically. Third, in keeping with his earlier work on Tolerance, Jewett emphasizes the message of Christian inclusiveness in Romans. He rightly argues that Paul is deeply concerned with this matter, as his exhortations to the “strong” and the “weak” reveal. This message is surely one that our modern fragmented church needs to hear. However, Jewett tends to ignore any possible boundaries in this inclusiveness. He does not think that the issue (or issues) Paul tackles in 14:1–15:13 can be construed as an adiaphoron, and at several points he distinguishes Paul’s view of “faith” from what he thinks  is a wrong-headed notion of commitment to a particular belief system (e.g. p. 278).

Especially telling is his decision to treat the warning about false teaching in 16:17– 20a as an interpolation, thereby (conveniently) removing a text that establishes some “boundary lines” for the community.

The incredible range of issues and approaches that need to be incorporated into a modern academic commentary means, sadly, that individual commentaries will seldom be able to “cover the waterfront.” Each will have methodological strengths and  weaknesses.

Jewett’s Romans is not strong in theological analysis or integration with broader biblical themes, but this omission should not detract from its strengths: careful textcritical and literary analysis, impressively extensive reference to ancient sources, interaction with an amazing breadth of scholarship on Romans, and, most of all, analysis of the rhetorical and cultural components of the message of the letter.

Douglas J. Moo

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten