Customer Reviews

Romans (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Joseph Fitzmyer is a foremost Roman Catholic figure the latter half of this century. His New Testament scholarship and exegetical/historical prowess is rightly world-renowned; and his two volume set on Luke is a 5 star commentary. Fitzmyer, living up to his reputation, gives a scholarly and penetrating treatment of the text of Romans; and, to his credit, ends up sounding more like Luther and Calvin than the council of Trent. Nevertheless, Fitzmyer is a good Catholic, and, though shrouded at times by his meticulous and forthright treatment of the text, his Catholicism can be discerned at times to the critical reader. One wonders if his Catholic commitments keep him from delving deeper into the riches of this extraordinary epistle. But at certain points Fitzmyer is very perceptive and his exegesis enlightening.

As a part of the Anchor Bible, Fitzmyer's Romans is highly critical and scholarly--not intended for the uninformed or novice in Biblical studies. Among the critical Romans scholars Fitzmyer is probably not at the very head of the list (Cranfield is the best), but he's a well-recongized scholar whose well worth the read.

The Anchor Commentary on Romans provides any student of the book of Romans with a comprehensive analysis of the text. While the commentary does not offer significant theological insights, it does provide a solid critical analysis of the text.

This was the first commentary I've read by Fr. Fitzmeyer. I found it helpful in sorting out the flow of the Apostle's thought in Romans in relation to his audience (the 1st Century Roman church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles), especially since he moves from adressing the different groups without clearly signaling the reader.
All the significant ancient, modern, and contemporary critics are represented in notes for each verse and important variances in the manuscripts are covered thoroughly. Fr. Fitzmeyer has a smooth coherent writing style that fosters the reading of such a large critical volume.
Unfortunately, I think neither Protestant nor Roman Catholics will be completely satisfied with the text. Fr. Fitzmeyer attempts to "cover" official Catholic doctrine by referencing various Church councils, but his treatment comes across as though doctrinal statements are merely one opinion among many. Thus he belies his reliance upon the critical method rather than the Apostolic Tradition of the Church in deciding doctrinal issues. If he was merely attempting to set forth "what the text means" then why reference the councils? The councils weren't doing exegesis, they were making doctrinal pronouncements.
His treatment of Rom 3:28 I found rather convoluted in that he seems bent upon justifying Luther's insertion of "alleyn" into the text and interpreting the many occassions St. Paul mentions the necessity of works and the obedience of faith for salvation as inherent to a living faith. He implies that Luther and Calvin understood works to be an inherent part of the faith St. Paul speaks of in Rom 3:28, but Luther and Calvin both made it abundantly clear that a man could commit murder every day and still be justified and saved if they call upon the Lord in faith. It is obvious to anyone familiar with the writings of both Luther and Calvin that their understanding of faith was just as they said: FAITH ALONE. This is why so many exegetes must twist and contort St. Paul or ignore major portions of his writings - because they are concerned primarily with defending their beloved human tradition of sola fide rather than doing true exegesis. Paul clearly speaks over and over of the necessity of works for salvation, works done in obedience to the law of Christ, works done under the dispensation of grace. He condemns only those works that one might use to justify oneself by holding God to a contract (such as the mosaic law). This is exactly what the judaizers were doing and the danger to which St. Paul believed the Jewish Christians in Rome were exposed.
For this reason I don't think either Catholic or Protestant readers will be completely satisfied with this work. Fr. Fitzmeyer should have been more concerned with being a Catholic theologian than appeasing potential Protestant readers. I think both would have appreciated the result.

The book is new, more than I expected. Received it in timely fashion.