Your Favourite Romans Commentary
I mentioned in a post this week that I love the Cranfield commentary. But I really don't know which is my favourite. Wright's appeals to me the most at one level, much as Witherington's does in a similar way. But mention must be made of Esler's Conflict and Identity in Romans, as well as the commentaries of Stuhlmacher, Dunn, Käsemann, Moo, Schreiner, and most recently Jewett's ... so many great offerings (I don't have Fitzmyer's). I suppose in my work I turn to Jewett's the most now, but what is my favourite? Wright's, I suppose, is difficult to top for shear reading pleasure and intellectual delight. What is your favourite Romans commentary?
posted by Chris Tilling @ 11:07 PM
32 comments
32 Comments:
Esler's is the best hands down. comes to terms with the letter's occasional purpose, Paul's developing and changing thought since Galatians, and the ethnic implications of "justification by faith" better than any other.
I love Wright's commentary. I wish he would release it as a stand alone. Or better yet I wish he would write another expanded more technical commentary. That would be awesome!!
Bryan
I have found Jewett`s the most interesting has he has taken on board the issues of `Paul and Politics`. His style appears to get beyond the problems of Justification by Faith and presents Pauls arguments in its social setting. I would also love to have a look at Fitzmyer.
Dunn's commentary without a doubt. Wright's is good and I found Moo's a little bland! I have Witherington's but I haven't used it yet. The worst commentary on Romans...(I can't believe I am saying this)...is BARTH!
I probably turn to Dunn first (I confess I haven't yet justified buying Jewett, so he remains for library visits). I think Fitznyer is well-worth consulting. I'd also add that Zeisler can be very helpful. If I really want to be stirred, however, I go to Cranfield, who is guaranteed to infuriate me with his reformed interpretation.
Cranfield, Dunn and Witherington are all particularly insightful. Moo is bland, but useful. And despite what Mark said I enjoy the Barth commentary as well.
Don't get me wrong Ranger I think it is a great book however, I think it is a terrible commentary! As it stand, on the landscape of 20th Century theology it truly is the bomb it is described as. For me it read more like a journal than anything exegetical.
Mark
Emergent Pilgrim: I absolutely disagree. My favorite commentary on Romans is Barth's Römerbrief by far! I turn to it repeatedly to be provoked and refreshed. It is an endlessly rewarding book.
Cranfield's commentary is very good as well, too.
Ernst Käsemann takes the cake for me.
I have to agree with you and Loren that Philip Esler's commentary is top-notch. I think he nails Paul the best. I'm also a fan of Dunn. There are other big names that don't quite reach either Esler or Dunn but still must be reckoned with, such as Leon Morris, F. F. Bruce, and Cranfield. Memory fails me on the quality, however...
Chris
D W, like I said it is a great book and a greta read. It just isn't a good commentary on Romans itself. I am more than open to being wrong (considering I am a reader of Barth) but I was very disappointed when I turned to it as a commentary.
C'mon Chris help me out here? ? ?
Apart from the rest of the Pauline corpus itself, my first turns with Romans commentaries are Cranfield, Calvin, Käsemann, and Barth.
Chris,
Jewett has to be top of the pops for sheer depth and breadth of learning. Wright is the most enjoyable even if it is sometimes myopic. Talbert is the dark horse and his commentary is filled with great exgetical rigor and background material. Moo and Schreiner are the best evangelical attempts and do good hand to hand combat with the NPP. Cranfield is the old Jewett and his Paul speaks Greek with a Genevan accent and Barthian hiccups. Honorable mention in despatches for Dunn and Fitzmyer.
I have in my files and still consult from time to time, copies of the lecture notes that Wright used to use when he lectured on Romans at Oxford in the early 90's - The Vorlage of the NIB volume (he used to write each lecture in the three hours before it started, on the old Nota Bene (DOS) programme and print it on one of those printers that had paper with holes on the side!)
It depends what you are looking for. If you want to know about Romans - then Esler gets the contextual dimensions pretty spot on as far as I am concerned. If you want to know about Paul, about what makes the apostle tick, then Käsemann on one side and Dunn on the other can slog it out. If you want to know about God, then Barth. If you want the detail, then Jewett replaces Cranfield, I think. I also have a soft spot for Ziesler. I think it remains the best introductory commentary (don't knock it, many students don't get beyond that kind of volume), but John was also my teacher.
My vote goes to Wright and Witherington, but there is a gap in the market: perhaps NTW could write a commentary on Romans in the New International Greek New Testament Commentary series - now there's a mouth-watering idea!
Wow, when I read all these comments I am amazed about how much you guys have already read and what deep insights you must have about what the gospel is and what it means that gods kingdom is at hand. That´s fantastic!
There´s one thing on my heart though:
Please, please, please: don´t keep this knowledge to yourself, but go out and tell people who have given up on the gospel, on Jesus, on the church, all the things you have already understood.
We need people like you, who have read those amazing authors who have done great exegesis to help rebuild trust in the bible and in the message of Jesus.
Probably most of you are already doing this anyway, but from my own experience I know that there´s a great seduction to stay home to read even more instead of spreading and explaining the things one has already understood to people who don´t know Jesus.
So this is just supposed to be a little reminder.
I´m sorry if this post doesn´t fit here, it was just something on my heart:-).
Niko from Germany.
I find Tom Wrights the most readable but its to large a book to carry around. Its not like you can sneak it in to your local bible study and impress people with your wit and intellect. It would be great if they produced it as a 1 volume for libronix/logos. I agree with other poster that we could do with a more technical commentray from Wright. For a great titled (joke) commentary Evangelcial Press (UK) have 'The Gospel as it really is'..... this is only to be matched for epistemological arrogance in the title by 'What saint Paul really said'.
I pretty much just rely on Dunn, Brendan Byrne, and Barth's work. I have found that to be rigorous and substantive enough for most any discussion or sermon on Romans. They are also great starting places for research. Barth's Romans just provokes good questions that we should continue to test.
First it's Wright, then it's Moo. For more lay-level insights I go to Bruce.
I actually think Dunn is a little boring. I much rather hear him than read him, at least on Romans.
Niko makes a great point. I think we constantly have to ask ourselves where all this reading has gotten us. Regarding the question, I've only read Wright so far and have Barth and then Jewett on my reading list. I'd be interested to see a full review of Calvin's Romans commentary. I'm wondering what it offers that the modern, and probably more readable, commentaries don't. Thanks.
I'm with Chris regarding Wright and Jewett. However, Neil Elliott has just published an exceptional little book on Romans called The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire and it deserves to be mentioned (especially as some are wondering how the reading of commentaries contributes to our day-to-day life as Christians).
Elliott, although a fine NT scholar, favours Barth's method of commentary, and so he reads Romans in light of both the Roman empire, and the current empire of late capitalism. Damn good stuff.
not registered, but i like your blog. as others and yourself have mentioned numerous times, dunn, wright, and jewett are all great. if you get a chance, check out "The Mystery of Romans" by Mark Nanos. have a good day
I found Stanley Stowers' A Rereading of Romans very insightful, even enjoyable.
My favorites would be C. K. Barrett's commentary from the Black's NT series and of course the NIB by N.T. Wright. In college, the class I had used Barrett's commentary. So it has a special place for me. As a general rule, I like the Black's NT series.
What about my NT prof from Bielefeld? I think he’s a genius: François Vouga, Ce Dieu qui m'a trouvé. Vingt lettres inédites sur l'épître de Paul aux Romains, Aubonne 1990. Moi Paul! Genève und Paris 2005. Don’t read French? Try his An die Galater, HNT 10, Tübingen 1998. Don’t read German? Everyone knows that Paul himself wrote in German. How can someone be a Neutestamentler without German?
Richard Longenecker is penning the NIGTC Romans Commentary. Howard Marshall, I think, is going to do the TWO HORIZONS. Stan Porter is due (very soon) to come out with a short commentary on Romans (Sheffield Phoenix). I am excited about both of these. Longenecker has told me he is still in the early stages, but he is almost certain it will be mult-volume.
Beverly Gaventa is also working on a short NTL guide to Romans - this should be really good.
Though not a commentary, Francis Watson's revised work on Paul(Eerdmans, 2007) is very insightful. As for what is currently out there, I consult Dunn, Wright, Moo, Cranfield, Barrett, and Kaesemann. Dunn first for me.
Brendan Byrne's commentary is my first pick.
There are some great suggestions here. Thanks people. I'm really excited about chasing up some of the recommendations I haven't heard of before. Danke :-)
Hi Chris,
please let me add some German commentaries.
For a rather short but very concise one, I'd suggest Peter Stuhlmacher (NTD), also availiable in English. Also fascinating is Klaus Haacker (ThHK). My personal favourite is not exactly brand new but (IMHO) still more than just good: Otto Michel (KEK).
Ulrich Wilckens (EKK) and Edurard Lohse (KEK) are the most important technical ones from recent times and are quite good.
God bless,
Gerschi
P.S.: I really have to apologize! I still haven't made it to read your paper on "1 Corinthians and Inerrancy" after asking for it so emphatically. I'm in the midst of my M.A. exams and ich bin komplett am rotieren. But I'm looking foreward to it. In afterlife (= life after the finals) I'll read it with much delight!
It's funny, I only saw one mention of Nanos' book in all of those comments. I can't understand why he doesn't get more recognition.
Charles Hodge, although I wish the publisher would translate some of his non-biblical quotations. Ich habe nur ein bisschen Deutsch sprechen.
I will bypass the standards to offer these thoughts: I'm glad to see Brendan Byrne's Sacra Pagina commentary mentioned twice. Though I do not always agree with him, he offers rich rhetorical and theological insight. Witherington is also quite insightful on Romans. And no one has mentioned Luke Johnson's Reading Romans--brief but very good.
Post a Comment
<< Home