Romans: Three Exegetical Interpretations and the History of Receptions. Volume 1: Romans 1:1–32

Abstract

While scholars typically lay out interpretive options and then argue one is the best, Daniel Patte, in this first volume of a three-volume commentary on Romans, presents three interpretations of Romans and argues that all are equally legitimate and equally plausible. In the foreword (pp. xv–xxv) and introduction (pp. 1–10) Patte describes how recent cultural phenomena of “fake news” and “alternative facts” as well as the diversity of interpretations of the biblical text make the subject of divergent explanations exceptionally relevant and how studying the reception of Romans along with biblical scholars, church historians, theologians from 1997–2011 as part of the SBL Seminar “Romans through History and Cultures” led him to see three major ways to interpret Romans that are equally legitimate and plausible.Because such a view goes against the grain of critical biblical scholarship, Patte defends his approach in the two chapters of part 1 (“Critical and Interpretation and the History of Reception in Romans”; pp. 11–69). The first chapter (pp. 11–45) describes in more detail the experience of the SBL Seminar that led the development of the methodology called “scriptural criticism” employed in this commentary. Such a method emerges from a belief that all interpretations reflect analytical textual choices, hermeneutical theological choices, and contextual choices, and these interpretations should be presumed legitimate and plausible until proven otherwise. The second chapter (pp. 46–69) features a critique of the genre of “critical commentary” since such commentaries argue for a single legitimate and plausible interpretation and dismiss or oddly incorporate the insights of other scholars. As an alternative approach, Patte proposes reading previous works in light of their “dominant interpretative line of reasoning” (p. 67), with his commentary engaging previous works according to interpretive approach.The longest section of the work is part 2 (“A Triple Commentary: Three Legitimate and Plausible Critical Exegeses of Rom 1:1–32”; pp. 71–332), in which Patte offers a commentary on Rom 1:1–32 from three different viewpoints. He labels these approaches respectively as reading Romans for “Its Forensic Theological Teaching” (ch. 3; pp. 73–119), “Its Call to Mission of an Inclusive Covenantal Community” (ch. 4; pp. 120–213), and “Its Realized-Apocalyptic/Messianic Vision” (ch. 5; pp. 214–332). The outline and organization of the comments in each chapter differs due to the way that particular approach divides up the text. A three-column table comparing how the interpretive approaches understand 31 different theological and ethical themes in Rom 1:1–32 appears as an appendix (pp. 475–98).Part 3 (“Critical Exegeses and Reception of Rom 1:1–32”; pp. 333–474) examines how each interpretation emerges from different contextual factors (ch. 6; pp. 335–87) and has particular ethical implications for individuals and communities that need to be considered when assessing interpretations (ch. 7; pp. 383–473). Patte uses multiple individuals and traditions to represent the three interpretation trajectories to evaluate potential benefit and harm in each: Augustine and Luther represent the “forensic-theological” interpretation, Clement of Alexandria and Abelard the “community-centered” view, and John Chrysostom the Pentecostal and Orthodox readings the “religious” dimensions of the realized-apocalyptic/messianic interpretation. The conclusion to the last chapter (pp. 472–74) conveys a central point of the work, one that Patte draws from his realized-apocalyptic/messianic reading of Rom 1:18–32, in that there is danger when one interpretation becomes absolutized to the rejection of the others.The work is unique in its approach and argumentation. Even if one disagrees with the premise that these interpretations are equally legitimate and plausible, one will greatly benefit from the analysis of the different strands of interpretation and Patte’s threefold explanation of the text; future work on Romans should draw on this work (and subsequent volumes). Those working in the field of hermeneutics also will be wise to engage with the claims of this work, explaining how to process the multiplicity of interpretations and taking seriously the fact that the Bible serves as a guide for life for individuals and communities. There are some unfortunate typographical errors in the names of important scholars (e.g., Douglas Moo is “Douglass” on p. 57 and Joseph Fitzmyer is “Fitzmier” on, e.g., pp. 105, 107, 110), but those do not take away from the careful argument and fine research of the book. The price of this edition likely limits its availability, but the paperback version scheduled to be published in January 2020 at a significantly lower cost ($39.95) should allow for more to interact with this provocative work.