Review in: Interpretation
2008 62: 194
Review door: Charles
H. Talbert (!)Gevonden op: http://int.sagepub.com/content/62/2/194.full.pdf+html
Romans: A Commentary
by Robert Jewett Hermeneia. Fortress, Minneapolis, 2007.
1140 pp. $90.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-8006-6084-0.
ROBERT JEWETT, WHO
SINCE 2000 has served as Guest Professor at the University of Heidelberg, has
produced a major research commentary on Paul's premier letter for the Hermeneia
Series. Each thought unit follows this format: original translation with explanation
of text-critical issues, analysis (overview of the thought of the unit as a
whole), rhetorical disposition (basically an outline of the unit), and exegesis
(detailed comments in a verse by verse fashion). Numerous footnotes carry on a
dialogue with secondary literature and cite relevant primary source materials.
Written
in 56-57 CE. from Corinth, Romans is a work of Christian rhetoric that aims to
persuade. It is organized in terms of an Exordium (1:1-12), a Narrano
(1:13-15), a Propositio (1:16-17), a Probatio (1:18-15:13),
and a Perorano (15:14-16:24). The Probatio consists of four
proofs: 1:18-4:25 (Jews and Gentiles are set right by the impartial
righteousness of God that overturns all claims of cultural superiority);
5:1-8:39 (life in Christ is a new system of honor that replaces the quest for
status through conformity to the Law); 9:1-11:36 (the triumph of divine
righteousness in the gospel's mission to Israel and the Gentiles); and
12:1-15:13 (living together according to the gospel so as to sustain the hope
of global transformation). Romans is generically a fusion of the ambassadorial
letter with the parenetic letter, the hortatory letter, and the philosophical
diatribe. A situational letter, not a theological treatise, it aims to persuade
the Roman house churches to support Paul's projected mission to Spain.
The need for such a letter lay in the divisions among the
various congregations in Rome. These house churches apparently had imbibed the
Roman imperial premise of exceptionalism in virtue and honor. This cultural
value was the source of the churches' divisions. Hence, in this letter Paul had
to clarify the gospel of impartial divine righteousness revealed in Christ so
as to rid the churches of their prejudicial elements that were dividing them.
In the cross, Paul argued, Christ overturned the honor system that dominated
the Mediterranean world. Jews and Gentiles were, therefore, on the same footing
before God. Only if the house churches in the city could come together in their
support would the mission to Spain proposed by the apostle be a possibility.
Given the lack of a Jewish presence in Spain and the various language groups
other than Greek, Paul would have needed Roman help in locating ahead of time
bases of operation, as well as logistical support, including translators.
Phoebe was sent to Rome with the letter to facilitate all of this.
There is a single theme in Romans: the gospel, stated in the
thesis sentence of 1:16-17. Paul's thesis is that the preaching of the gospel
to establish faith communities, rather than force of arms, is the means by
which God's global righteousness is manifest in a progressive manner. This
revelation of divine righteousness in the gospel proceeds only on the basis of
faith. Faith is understood as participation in faith communities where
righteous relationships are maintained. Those righteous relations are based on
the fundamental lack of distinction between believers either in shame or honor,
because all fall short and all are set right as a sheer gift. God breaks
through the barriers of honor and shame that separate. Faith is the sole
requirement, that is, accepting the message about Jesus' shameful death and
joining the community of the shamed who are now honored by God.
This
is a fresh reading of Romans in terms of the honor-shame culture of the ancient
Mediterranean world. It also sees small groups as the object of God's
righteousness. Like all fresh readings, it may push the envelope a bit too far.
God's righteousness (saving activity) certainly cannot be reduced to
"rightwising" (Kendrick Grobel's term for justification, now picked
up by Jewett) individuals, but neither can it exclude individuals. Communities
that are being redeemed cannot be comprised of unredeemed individuals. One must
conclude, then, that God's righteousness (saving activity) aims at rightwising
individuals, communities, and ultimately the cosmos. Would it not be correct to
say that, in the Roman situation, Paul is trying to get the communities to
overcome their divisions, especially between Jewish and Gentile members, by
realizing the communal implications of their justification as individuals? I
see nothing in the argument of the letter as Jewett sketches it that would
preclude this reading.
The
author says that he employs all the methods of historical-critical exegesis in
his commentary. The full array of his exegetical skills is certainly
impressive. At times one wonders whether or not hermeneutical concerns have
surfaced in the midst of historical description. Two instances maybe mentioned.
First, in the discussion of 1:24-32, after an excellent survey of ancient
materials, Jewett says that in using the category "according to
nature" Paul is raising a cultural norm to the level of a
"natural" and thus a biological principle, "which would probably
have to be formulated differently today" (p. 177). It seems to me that in
this case it is precisely a biological base that enables the apostolic claim to
transcend cultural relativity. Is the reader here encountering, then, not historical
exegesis but a hermeneutical move? Second, in the exegesis of 3:21-26 one
encounters this statement: "God's very being as a righteous God is
expressed as she makes groups righteous by faith" (p. 293). If the
reference to God as "she" is not a typo, it certainly is a
hermeneutical move and not historical-critical exegesis.
Jewett rightly, in my opinion,
translates hilasterion as "mercy seat" in 3:25. He also, in my
opinion, rightly says that the Atonement Day ritual served to remove pollution
that affected the mercy seat and thereby cleansed God's earthly throne so that
the divine presence could dwell in the midst of the people and God could speak
from it. The sins of the people, however, were laid on the scapegoat to be
driven out into the wilderness. One set of sacrifices cleansed the mercy seat
space, while another served to cleanse the people. If so, then the translation
"whom God put forth as a mercy seat through faith in his blood" makes
no sense. What would make sense is a translation that runs "whom God put
forth as a mercy seat through his (Jesus') faithfulness by means of his blood." This translation would convey
that Jesus' death purified the seat where God's presence dwelt and from which
God spoke, namely, the person of Jesus. Are there shades of Anselm in Jewett's
translation that prevent a right reading of the text?
One cannot
conclude without appreciatively noting two significant readings espoused by the
author. One is his recognition oí prosopopoeia (speech-in-character) in
Rom 7. The other is his translation of Junia instead of Junias in 16:5. It is
good to see these readings incorporated into this fine research commentary
provided by a mature and creative scholar.
Charles H. Talbert
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
WACO, TEXAS
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten