The Book of Romans

[boblloyd91]

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of good commentaries on the Book of Romans. I  am finding that book a bit hard to understand and follow at times!

[Vance]

I liked this one,

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Paul-Richard-Lloyd-Anderson/dp/1590387295

 

[boblloyd91]

Thanks!

[RBoylan]

There are a lot of good commentaries. Here are some of my favourites:

 

Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Yale Biblical Commentary)

 

James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8

Idem, Romans 9-16 (both part of the Word Biblical Commentary Series)

 

Brendan Byrne, Sacrina Pagina: Romans

 

Richard N. Longnecker, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Greek Testament Commentary)

 

While not about Romans merely, this is a great volume (added bonus: it is huge--I like big books, I cannot lie . . . )

 

Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God : An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul

[PacMan]

12 hours ago, RBoylan said:

There are a lot of good commentaries. Here are some of my favourites:

 

Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Yale Biblical Commentary)

 

James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8

Idem, Romans 9-16 (both part of the Word Biblical Commentary Series)

 

Brendan Byrne, Sacrina Pagina: Romans

 

Richard N. Longnecker, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Greek Testament Commentary)

 

While not about Romans merely, this is a great volume (added bonus: it is huge--I like big books, I cannot lie . . . )

 

Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God : An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul

Out of curiosity, how many of those have you completely read?

[RBoylan]

40 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Out of curiosity, how many of those have you completely read?

All of them.

[clarkgoble]

On 2/10/2019 at 3:16 PM, boblloyd91 said:

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of good commentaries on the Book of Romans. I  am finding that book a bit hard to understand and follow at times!

I'd start with getting an alternative translation. The KJV, especially when formatted in a verse centric way, makes it hard to follow. I'd suggest some of N. T. Wright's writings for a non-Mormon commentary. Here's a nice paper that gives you a feel for his thought. "Romans and the Theology of Paul" Most of his writings are broader than Romans or are focused on a particular topic related to Romans rather than offering a real commentary on Romans. But his work on say Justification or the like are well worth reading. For a Mormon commentary I'd strongly praise Jim Faulconer's The Life of Holiness. It's not a commentary on all of Romans, but a significant section. Beyond that I'd second Robert Boylan's suggestions, particularly the Joseph Fitzmyer commentary for the Yale Bible series. The Yale series are my favorite commentaries with only the occasional one that's a bit disappointing.

[hope_for_things]

On 2/10/2019 at 3:16 PM, boblloyd91 said:

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of good commentaries on the Book of Romans. I  am finding that book a bit hard to understand and follow at times!

I liked this book by Adam Miller. 

https://www.amazon.com/Grace-Not-Gods-Backup-Plan/dp/1508647763/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=adam+miller+romans&qid=1549926615&s=gateway&sr=8-2

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I liked this book by Adam Miller. 

https://www.amazon.com/Grace-Not-Gods-Backup-Plan/dp/1508647763/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=adam+miller+romans&qid=1549926615&s=gateway&sr=8-2

I originally had that, but Adam's reading is a bit different from Wright. I get what Adam is doing, largely following Badiou. I'm just not sure I agree. There's a certain problematic in Adam's thought which I think verges on what's called quietism. Adam doesn't think that's correct but to me there is a bit of a problematic "letting be" to Adam's reading of Romans as well. Of course arguably that's a long standing element in Christianity as well, such as John 3:5-9. How to take such passages isn't clear. Adam's reading is very much influenced by Badiou and I'm just not sure how I feel about that - especially compared to N. T. Wright's reading. Anyways, that's why I hesitated, although I really do like Adam's book a lot. If nothing else it makes me think.

For those interested here's a discussion of Badiou on the issue, although it gets a bit dense in places. Not having read extensively in all the figures though I'm a bit cautious as I may in key ways be misunderstanding Adam. Still Adam's reading isn't necessarily the type of reading most commentaries would give - except perhaps some Lutheran ones. That said, some parts are absolutely brilliant and it's well worth reading. Perhaps with a bit of intellectual suspicion though. (That's often frequently healthy)

Edited February 12, 2019 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I originally had that, but Adam's reading is a bit different from Wright. I get what Adam is doing, largely following Badiou. I'm just not sure I agree. There's a certain problematic in Adam's thought which I think verges on what's called quietism. Adam doesn't think that's correct but to me there is a bit of a problematic "letting be" to Adam's reading of Romans as well. Of course arguably that's a long standing element in Christianity as well, such as John 3:5-9. How to take such passages isn't clear. Adam's reading is very much influenced by Badiou and I'm just not sure how I feel about that - especially compared to N. T. Wright's reading. Anyways, that's why I hesitated, although I really do like Adam's book a lot. If nothing else it makes me think.

For those interested here's a discussion of Badiou on the issue, although it gets a bit dense in places. Not having read extensively in all the figures though I'm a bit cautious as I may in key ways be misunderstanding Adam. Still Adam's reading isn't necessarily the type of reading most commentaries would give - except perhaps some Lutheran ones. That said, some parts are absolutely brilliant and it's well worth reading. Perhaps with a bit of intellectual suspicion though. (That's often frequently healthy)

Thanks for the info, this is all new to me.  I'll check out the links you provided.  

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, RBoylan said:

All of them.

Bobby Boylan is a scholar.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/10/2019 at 3:16 PM, boblloyd91 said:

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of good commentaries on the Book of Romans. I  am finding that book a bit hard to understand and follow at times!

I recommend that you begin with a good study Bible with an adequate modern translation:  The introduction and notes will probably be all you need if you obtain the New Jerusalem Bible (Doubleday, 1985).  It represents the best Roman Catholic scholarship.

[PacMan]

On 2/11/2019 at 12:56 PM, RBoylan said:

All of them.

Good on you.  That's quite the dedication to the Romans.  Do you find that they differ in any material way?  I'd be interested in one or two recommendations, as opposed to reading all of them and gleaning no new information.

[RBoylan]

34 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Good on you.  That's quite the dedication to the Romans.  Do you find that they differ in any material way?  I'd be interested in one or two recommendations, as opposed to reading all of them and gleaning no new information.

There would be some differences. Byrne and Fitzmyer are Catholics; Dunn is a Protestant who leans heavily towards the New Perspective on Paul.

 

If you are looking for *one* I would recommend Fitzmyer's commentary.

 

[PacMan]

Which school of thought most closely aligns with us LDS? Namely, that grace is freely offered to all and that there is nothing we can do to merit grace, but we qualify, through grace, for gradations of blessings through our obedience?