BUILDING A NEW TESTAMENT LIBRARY: ROMANS—EPHESIANS

New commentaries are always on the horizon. Reviewing these newer published commentaries, three trends are observable.

First, the commentaries generally are “more accessible” for the less technically trained students or laity (not having learned Greek well or at all); thus they are also shorter in length. The tendency is not to rehearse the vast history of interpretation, but rather to focus on the more perennial problems of debate. Such commentary seeks to disseminate the fruits of biblical interpretation, including background studies, more thorough discussions of the most debated pericopes and issues, and thoughtful considerations for ecclesial and missional appropriation.

Second, newer commentaries attempt to correlate NT texts with Roman Hellenistic thought and practice in the Mediterranean world (i.e., “background studies”)—for example, C. Keener’s Romans (Cascade, 2009), C.H. Talbert’s Romans in the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (SHBC; 2002), and F. Long’s Ephesians in the new Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity series (Deo/Westminster John Knox, forthcoming), demonstrate a growing appreciation of early Christianity’s “social locatedness” (i.e., its incarnational nature) in regard to the interpretation of NT texts. An understanding of these social-political-religious similarities and distinctions should assist with an appropriation and application of the truths of the Christian faith within our increasingly complex and pluralistic world.

Third, commentaries are appearing that represent broader global Christianity (e.g., S. Ngewa’s Galatians in the Hippo/Africa Bible Commentary Series (Hippo, forthcoming) and J.A. Adewuya’s, A Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians in the International Study Guide Series (SPCK, 2009). The perspectives from such commentaries will broaden our understanding and appropriation of Scripture, and are a welcome addition to the exegetical conversation. The interpretive perspectives brought by these newer types of commentaries will be valuable, even though many do not make my final recommended list.

For Romans, with respect to matters pertaining to the history of interpretation and attention to Greek grammar, I still recommend C.E.B. Cranfield’s two volumes in the International Critical Commentary (ICC [6th ed.; T&T Clark, 1975]). Although expensive and a bit dated, Cranfield lays out with sufficient clarity the major possibilities for interpretive decision. For example, on the identity of the “I” in Rom 7, Cranfield indicates that “we may distinguish at least seven possibilities” and then outlines them and by process of elimination decides among them (1:344-47). Although I disagree with his conclusion (1:377-78; see instead the excellent discussion and conclusion of C.H. Talbert), I understand clearly Cranfield’s reasons. Also, the format is easy to follow with continuous discussion of the progressive verses and portions of Greek text commented upon and placed in bold. More up-to-date and with broader socio-historical and theological considerations is J.D.G. Dunn’s two-volume commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary (WBC; Word, 1988). It, too, offers verse-by-verse exposition, but, in keeping with the WBC format, contains the helpful sections of bibliography, translation with (text-critical) notes, form/structure/setting, (verse-by-verse) comment, and a generalized explanation. D.J. Moo’s contribution to the New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT; Eerdmans, 1996) is thorough and judicious. Here is a masterful handling of history of interpretation and weighing of exegetical possibilities. For a careful and insight continuous reading, consider the excellent commentary by N.T. Wright in the New Interpreter’s Bible ([NIB 10; ed. L.E. Keck; Abingdon, 2002] 393-770). Wright, e.g., rightly concludes that the Gentiles in 2:14-16 are most likely Christian.

For 1 Corinthians, I still like G.D. Fee’s volume in the NICNT (1987); he fully engages the Greek text and is aware and concerned about contemporary church issues and theology. Fee’s attention to literary and rhetorical-argumentative structures is always rewarding. However, his work needs to be updated with regard to certain background studies, especially his treatment of “head coverings” in ch. 11 (cf. B.W. Winter’s work in After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change [Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2001] and Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities [Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2003]). Helpful for the purposes of the history of interpretation—especially in early church history and patristics—is A.C. Thiselton’s massive (1424 pages!) contribution to the New International Greek Testament Commentary series (NIGTC; Eerdmans, 2000). More recently, D.E. Garland in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT (Baker, 2003), offers detailed and judicious interpretations and thorough treatments of perennial problem passages (e.g., 1 Cor 14:34-35; see also R.S. Nash in the SHBC; both are unlike Fee and Hays who treat 14:34-35 as a non-Pauline interpolation). Garland (and to a lesser extend Nash) effectively correlates background studies in the interpretation of difficult passages. For a sustained reading of 1 Corinthians, see the very fine work of R.B. Hays in the Interpretation series (Westminster John Knox, 1997).

For 2 Corinthians, careful attention to the Greek text with concern for theology is seen in M.J. Harris’ magnum opus in the NIGTC (2005). Harris provides a most detailed review of the history of interpretation and excellent evidence for the unity of the letter. Good second and third choices are P. Barnett’s commentary in the NICNT (1997) and Garland’s in the New American Commentary (Broadman & Holman, 1999), with the latter two much less technical. Among the many advantages of these three evangelical commentaries is the decision to interpret 2 Corinthians as a unified composition, which greatly contributes to contextualized theological interpretation. Finally, M.E. Thrall’s two-volume commentary in ICC (1994-2000) is valuable for its engagement with critical continental scholarship. Although holding to a partition theory of the letter, as is characteristic for the ICC, Thrall critically engages the Greek text and conjoins careful observation to exegetical decisions.

For Galatians, H.D. Betz’s seminal Galatians in Hermeneia (Fortress, 1979) is still an excellent exposition, understanding Galatians as defensive forensic rhetoric. His command of primary and secondary literature is both instructive and very often judicious (e.g., Betz’s interpretation of “Israel of God” in Gal 6:6). Ben Witherington’s Grace in Galatia (Eerdmans, 1998) alternatively interprets the letter as deliberative rhetoric and interacts extensively with the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition. Although much less technical than Betz, the benefit of Witherington is the way he combines his efficient interpretation with brief interaction with the major (and recent) figures in the history of interpretation. J.L. Martyn’s work in the Anchor Bible (AB; Doubleday, 1997) is excellent, and represents a careful consideration of the inner logic of the letter vis-à-vis considering the viewpoint of the (opposing) “evangelizing teachers.” For a careful reading of the argument in theological perspective, see R.B. Hays’ discussion of Galatians in the NIB (2000; 11:181-348).

For Ephesians, I favor those commentators who understand Paul to be author of the letter. Otherwise, interpretive judgments are too often made that pit the thought of Ephesians against (undisputed) Pauline thought. Very accessible is P.T. O’Brien’s volume in the Pillar NT Commentary (Eerdmans, 1999). Characteristic for the Pillar series, O’Brien minimizes critical discussions of the Greek text, although his commentary is the result of such careful study. Additionally, O’Brien provides careful attention to detail with intertextual correlations and a keen theological interest. Buried in his footnotes are helpful citations to secondary literature. H.W. Hoehner’s commentary (Baker, 2002) represents a life’s work. Although I disagree with a number of his exegetical decisions and vestiges of dispensational theology, Hoehner engages well the history of interpretation, provides analytical and clear discussions, and amasses much background data from primary sources to help one’s study. Older, but still valuable for the engagement of critical continental scholarship and his interests in theology is M. Barth’s two-volume commentary in AB (1974). Finally, I have gleaned helpful background information and literary insight from C.H. Talbert’s Ephesians and Colossians in the Paideia Commentary series (Baker, 2007), although disagreeing with his non-Wesleyan interpretation of predestination language in 1:3-14.

By Fredrick J. Long, Associate Professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary.