Customer Reviews

Romans (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)

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

 

 

The ACCS series, of which this volume on Romans is a part, is a place to begin in terms of patristic commentary, not a place to end. If this series had claimed to be an in-depth and comprehensive collection on the Church Fathers' statements on Scripture, then many of the critiques leveled at it would be justified. However, these negative reviews are aiming at a straw man.

The ACCS series provides selected commentary by various thinkers in the early centuries of Christianity regarding the various books of the Bible. Even with its selectivity, these books are hundreds of pages long (compared to the at most thirty or so pages of the actual Scriptural text). To try and be as comprehensive as some reviewers seem to be demanding, the volume on Romans would no doubt have to be at least three large volumes itself.

The series creators hoped these volumes could help encourage cross-denominational discussion with these formative thinkers. It is a starting place for thinking and discussing, not the end. Perhaps the best use of these volumes are as time-savers. Even the best Patristics scholar will not have the location of every comment on a particular Scripture verse by the Fathers right of the top of his/her head. And they may not want to spend the time of going through the index of, say, every volume in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers series (all, what, 28 of them?). Instead, the scholar can look quickly at this volume from the ACCS, looking to see what various Fathers had to say, then go to the original document to see the topic in context, where the various commentaries can be compared. Certainly, the ACCS volume on Romans is useful for that.

If one is looking for every comment from every Church Father on Scripture, this is not the series for you. But, then again, that's not what this series intended to be in the first place. But, as a starting place for further research, it is excellent.

In light of all the negative reviews below, I'd like to add another perspective. While I do agree that there is a need for a more in-depth and scholarly collection of ancient comments on Scripture (yes, Anchor would probably do a fine job), this series is a great resource for the busy pastor. When I was in seminary, or in positions where I wasn't preaching every week, going to the original documents was expected and even enjoyable. But as the pastor of a church plant, I'm thrilled to have these books to quickly see how my interpretations (and those of modern commentators) square with the thoughts of our ancient brethren.
If you're an academic, a student, or want to really wrestle with what the ancients had to say, then yes, a more extensive collection is desirable. But if you're pressured with the weekly grind of preaching, yet still want to take your congregation a bit deeper, these commentaries can be a real blessing.

It is discouraging to read some negative reviews printed twice under the same name and to see so many negative reviews without details under "reader."

This commentary indeed includes condemned heretics like Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia. However, Origen was described by Gregory of Nyssa as the "touchstone of us all" and continued to be influential as a biblical critic throughout the Middle Ages. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Tertullian were similarly influential. Before the Muslim conquests and Iconoclasm ossified positions among Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and so-called Oriental Orthodox Christians, these were the writers who were widely read, admired - and yes - sometimes refuted.

I recommend it as an adjunct to the International Critical Commentary (ICC). Skip the Anchor commentary, which covers much of its liberal bias, and commentaries from conservative publishers that do the same. Use the ICC to uncover the scholarly issues of our day and the ACCS as a pastoral voice, generally in agreement but hardly monolithic, from before the medieval controversies. Since the editor (a Baptist, I believe) has rendered a number of translations himself, it always is worth going to the original sources (preferably in the original language) to follow up on what is attractive, disturbing or unclear.

After 20 years of reading and studying the Bible, I have never been more encouraged with a commentary series. The study on Romans is exceptional! I am neither Roman Catholic or Protestant and have found this Ancient Christian Commentary series a BLESSING. I had grown weary of the Reformation, Lutheran, Calvinist readings of scripture. It is so encouraging and refreshing to see what the first 3 centuries thought about Romans before Christianity became Christendumb (sic).

Produced by mainly Protestants with some consultation by Catholics the volumes are limited in scope and selective to what material they cover from the Fathers of the Church. Translations are sometimes questionable, but as the old axiom goes "the translator betrays" and all translators must make decisions that will not always be accepted by others.

For its limited scope these are fine volumes worthy of any non-scholars shelf as a help in formulating education series, sermons, homilies, articles, or other work. They provide a very approachable format to learn how some of the Fathers of the Church interpreted the Bible. The front material is weak and not comprehensive and the biographical data on the fathers, while present, is very short. A subject index is also included.

For the student I would use this volume as a regular high school or undergraduate research tool, and a starter tool for graduate or post graduate work. Serious scholars will need to look to other materials such as the ICC and original sources. This commentary alone is not sufficient.

For a specific example, passages such as Romans 3:23, 6:23, 8:28-30, and others are left wanting in the included commentary. The included quotations at times simply don't offer much or don't appear to give an adequate summary of Early Christian Thought. The Fathers appear ambiguous in the selected quotations on the meaning of the passages, when in fact a fuller study reveals a shared unity and method of interpretation among the orthodox (read: right belief) fathers (See Williamson's study on interpretation in the Church Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Subsidia Biblica, 22)).

Other good resources on the Fathers:
The Early Church (The Penguin History of the Church) (v. 1)
The Fathers of the Church, Expanded Edition
Faith of the Early Fathers: Three-Volume Set
The Early Church Fathers (38 Vols.)

All said I do RECOMMEND this series.

Like all the other editions in this collection of writings from the early Church Fathers it sheds new light with ancient wisdom and teachings on Scripture.

I appreciate being able to build my theological library with books in my price range. The book has already been used in sermon/study preparation. Thank you for the easy service and quality products.

In contrast to Weinrich's ecumenical treatment of Revelation (see my other reviews) it seemed like Bray did a healthy bit of editorializing in Romans. Bray is an evangelical (read Calvinist) minister in the Anglican Church and takes pointed aim at Catholicism's claim to the Papacy early in the book. While I agree with him I feel the purpose of this set (the ACCS) is to let the fathers and other early Christian thinkers speak for themselves. I also felt as if there was a Calvinistic emphasis on predestination being pushed. Also in contrast to Weinrich's Revelation, there was no biographical sketches of the fathers nor a timeline of when they lived.

Those complaints noted, this is still an important work as it put the writings of the fathers out there in a popular and organized format - equally accessible to the average layman as it is to the scholar. Also, while I was sensitive to some of Bray's editorializing, this should not be taken to imply that this book is a Calvinist commentary on Romans. There is plenty of theological diversity in the quotes of the fathers themselves.

I kind of feel that too much space and time were given to Origen and Pelagius but part of that is probably because much of the material coming from Origen was freshly translated into English for the 1st time. I suspect the same was true for Pelagius. On balance there are some names in here I have never seen before like Theodoret of Cyr who got a respectable amount of space.

Two sections I found pretty intriguing were the sections on the oft-debated mass conversion of the Jews at the end of time in chapter 11 (some fathers believed in this others did not) and the names usually glossed over at the end of Romans. Either there is some hidden history here in the names section or the early fathers extrapolated wildly - it's one or the other because there is information here I have never seen or heard of before.

I read this book alongside Martin Franzmann's commentary on Romans chapter-by-chapter going back and forth between the two and found overlap, contrast and also areas of completely new information and insight. Minor deficiencies aside this book is still worth the read.

This book is a great disappointment. The concept is great: collecting Christian commentary on the book of Romans from the first eight centuries of the Church. However, the "Christian" commentary includes far more selections from authors considered heretical than from those venerated as Saints and Fathers of the Church. For example, St. Athanasios and St. Gregory the Theologian are quoted only once each. St. Maximos is completely ignored. St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory of Nyssa have about a half dozen quotes each. Of the great Fathers of the Church, only St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria are well represented. Instead of quotes from the Church Fathers, the editors give us hundreds of quotes from Pelagios, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Tertullian, the Montanist Oracle, etc. So, if you want quotes from those commonly considered heretics, buy this volume. If, however, you want commentary from the Fathers of the Church, look elsewhere.

This series is disappointing. I simply did not find the comments from the Fathers very illuminating presented in this context. This was not what I expected.

I would advise anyone who finds modern biblical scholarship unhelpful to immerse himself in the Fathers directly and in the original context. If we then read the scriptures adopting, if only for the moment, their mindset, their presuppositions, and their methods, the scriptures will be openned up to us in a new and fruitful way.

We moderns can find allegorical interpretation, for example, somewhat farfetched. But it is clear to me that some of what the apostles intended to teach cannot be understood from a strictly literal reading of the text. The apostles themselves do not take a concrete, literal approach to interpreting the Old Testament. Imitating the thought processes of the Fathers, who are much closer culturally to the apostles, opens our eyes to more of the New Testament's message.

In the final analysis, it is difficult to fully comprehend the gospel message presented in the scriptures without realizing that the early Church, for which the New Testament was written, believed in baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (understood as sacrificial) and the Church as an organic structure put in place by the apostles.

If the authors of this series had fully appreciated this I think they might taken the plunge into the stream instead of dousing themselves with thimblefuls of water.

A final comment on the choice of the RSV. The major defect of this fine translation is the tendency to downplay the messianic implications of Old Testament texts, that is to "recover" some "original" text from the accretions of subsequent interpretations. Many of the texts that are interpreted messianicly in the New Testament are translated in such a way as to obscure rather than highlight this possiblity. A similar problem arises in the New Testament with the choice of "it" rather than "He" for the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure what alternative the editors had for this problem.