Romans - Outside In

[mikesw]

One thing I am recommending for the first session is to "hear" the letter in full. There are several ways to do this but a simple (and free) approach is to use the Blue Letter Bible online system that has an audio reading of the text. It runs about an hour and a quarter for the whole letter.

Romans Chapter 1

English Standard Version: Romans Chapter 1 @ Blue Letter Bible

www.blueletterbible.org

The weakness of that approach is that Paul's rhetoric has been designed so carefully that people fail to recognize the rhetoric that is there. Even Ben Witherington III, having written on Romans and also on New Testament rhetoric, has failed to recognize that rhetoric in Romans-- of augmentation in 5:16-19. Paul also repeats "God gave them up" in 24-28, which has the effect of reinforcing the desperate situation of the Jews (despite the issue briefly sounding more like gentile behavior). It took several years for me to stumble upon the message of Rom 6 and 7 and it was just recently that 2:17-3:2 made sense in the context. Therefore, a read-through of the letter, while a great idea, is not going to give a sufficient starting point to understand the letter intuitively -- if that is even possible by anyone. The letter is more like Isaiah in that the ideas have to be worked through. The verses have to be studied deeply. I have written over 60 pages to explain Paul's approach in Rom 4:1-2 -- partly because I was getting more insight into the indirect rebuke Paul was making.

P.S. -- I'm just hoping people will catch on to the situation Paul was confronting in Rome and how he worked it through his writing to fix problems of the gentiles and ultimately get them to accept that Jews could be saved.

 

[civic]

One thing I am recommending for the first session is to "hear" the letter in full. There are several ways to do this but a simple (and free) approach is to use the Blue Letter Bible online system that has an audio reading of the text. It runs about an hour and a quarter for the whole letter.

Romans Chapter 1

English Standard Version: Romans Chapter 1 @ Blue Letter Bible

www.blueletterbible.org

I have Moo from NICNT, Schreiner from ECNT and Murray from the older NICNT. I Ould be interested in your opinion on them. Thanks !

 

[Swordman]

I have Moo from NICNT, Schreiner from ECNT and Murray from the older NICNT. I Ould be interested in your opinion on them. Thanks !

I have not used Murray.

I use Moo and Schreiner as referenced in my book. They are generally good. However, I prefer Dunn, Longenecker, and Gorman.

There are always books coming out on Romans, almost every year.

 

[Swordman]

The weakness of that approach is that Paul's rhetoric has been designed so carefully that people fail to recognize the rhetoric that is there. Even Ben Witherington III, having written on Romans and also on New Testament rhetoric, has failed to recognize that rhetoric in Romans-- of augmentation in 5:16-19. Paul also repeats "God gave them up" in 24-28, which has the effect of reinforcing the desperate situation of the Jews (despite the issue briefly sounding more like gentile behavior). It took several years for me to stumble upon the message of Rom 6 and 7 and it was just recently that 2:17-3:2 made sense in the context. Therefore, a read-through of the letter, while a great idea, is not going to give a sufficient starting point to understand the letter intuitively -- if that is even possible by anyone. The letter is more like Isaiah in that the ideas have to be worked through. The verses have to be studied deeply. I have written over 60 pages to explain Paul's approach in Rom 4:1-2 -- partly because I was getting more insight into the indirect rebuke Paul was making.

P.S. -- I'm just hoping people will catch on to the situation Paul was confronting in Rome and how he worked it through his writing to fix problems of the gentiles and ultimately get them to accept that Jews could be saved.

The problem is, the original audience would not have read the text. They would have heard it. Most people were not literate in the first century.

Are you suggesting we would better understand it than the original audience?

 

[mikesw]

I have Moo from NICNT, Schreiner from ECNT and Murray from the older NICNT. I Ould be interested in your opinion on them. Thanks !

Checkout https://bestcommentaries.com/romans/ for some sense of order. One problem there is they do no list someone well known like Ernst Käsemann.
Originally I think I liked Schreiner's commentary format. He is decent but Moo covers topics better. Also Moo is a bit more honest to say when a passage is unclear. (Some writers seem to gloss over the difficulties -- but often just in short commentaries.)

 

[mikesw]

The problem is, the original audience would not have read the text. They would have heard it. Most people were not literate in the first century.

Are you suggesting we would better understand it than the original audience?

I say the opposite. We do not understand the letter because it was written narrowly to be understood on first reading/hearing of it by the original recipients. Until we have understood the situation and attitude of the gentile recipients, we cannot simply listen to the letter and recognize it. The commentaries need to show not only a theory of what the text says. They need to present the idea in a fashion that we could see how the original readers/auditors would have the same understanding in a single hearing of the letter. (Okay. there are probably a handful of passages that the recipients would have to read more carefully. Once it was figured out, then the idea could be shared with everyone.)

 

[mikesw]

I have not used Murray.

I use Moo and Schreiner as referenced in my book. They are generally good. However, I prefer Dunn, Longenecker, and Gorman.

There are always books coming out on Romans, almost every year.

I have some notes from Dunn's commentary. I keep forgetting that Longenecker has one (okay. two). It is available as an online ebook so I may review some of it at a nearby library. As to Gorman, his commentary is generally shorter than I find useful for references in papers on Romans.

 

[Swordman]

I have some notes from Dunn's commentary. I keep forgetting that Longenecker has one (okay. two). It is available as an online ebook so I may review some of it at a nearby library. As to Gorman, his commentary is generally shorter than I find useful for references in papers on Romans.

Gorman is writing more for the church than the academy. He is still an excellent scholar. (I trained under Gorman.)

 

[Swordman]

Next week we are going to do an introductory video to discuss the class that begins on October 17 (beginning at 7:00 PM EST on Thursdays). I will post a link later for the video.

The sessions will be held at Lansdowne Alliance Church (Baltimore MD) if anyone is interested in attending in person.

As a note, if you plan to attend the sessions, there is a pre-class survey I would appreciate you filling out. You can do it anonymously. This is for my thesis research, so you would be helping me out. I will post a link for that as well.

It is optional, so do not feel obligated.

 

[Swordman]

Next week we are going to do an introductory video to discuss the class that begins on October 17 (beginning at 7:00 PM EST on Thursdays). I will post a link later for the video.

The sessions will be held at Lansdowne Alliance Church (Baltimore MD) if anyone is interested in attending in person.

As a note, if you plan to attend the sessions, there is a pre-class survey I would appreciate you filling out. You can do it anonymously. This is for my thesis research, so you would be helping me out. I will post a link for that as well.

It is optional, so do not feel obligated.

I spoke to the pastor of the church and he wants to record it and then post. Once it is posted, I will provide the link.

 

[Swordman]

Introductory Video for the class that begins October 17.

 

[Swordman]

Just a quick update here. The class starts this coming Thursday. This initial class is what I would call Session 0 - Introduction to the class.

No assignments, just come (online or in person). We begin reading or listening for the following week after this introductory class.

 

[Swordman]

Sorry - could not resist.

The class starts tomorrow. 7:00 PM EST.

The online link is in the prior post.

 

[Swordman]

We have had two Thursday night sessions for our course on Romans, the introduction and the survey of the whole letter. I do not know whether anyone from here made it, but if so, I was wondering if there was any feedback.

For some reason, I cannot see the comments thread.

Jeff Simpson (pastor) was managing the online session while I spoke and said someone had suggested covering the events of 49 AD (Edict of Claudius). That is scheduled for session 4, where I will discuss the rhetorical situation.

The current order is:

1. Reading the text as a whole (yesterday)
2. Genre, author and audience - next week (audience is part of the rhetorical situation suggested by Bitzer, but I am splitting it).
3. Roman context
4. Rhetorical situation and the interlocutor
   
   
5. Two-week break for Thanksgiving (I have to be at ETS and SBL in San Diego the week before Thanksgiving)
   
   
6. The Judaism of Paul
7. Intertextuality (reading scripture in Scripture
8. Contextualization - putting it all together in our context

That will get us through Romans 1-3, which we will cover as we go along.

 

[mikesw]

We have had two Thursday night sessions for our course on Romans, the introduction and the survey of the whole letter. I do not know whether anyone from here made it, but if so, I was wondering if there was any feedback.

For some reason, I cannot see the comments thread.

Jeff Simpson (pastor) was managing the online session while I spoke and said someone had suggested covering the events of 49 AD (Edict of Claudius). That is scheduled for session 4, where I will discuss the rhetorical situation.
...
That will get us through Romans 1-3, which we will cover as we go along.

I have watched and perused the questions. I was in the one who mentioned the edict. Also, it can help to note the original Jewish and gentile Christians likely first met within synagogues so that some gentiles had followed Christ for a good part of 3 decades. You also have mentioned the Claudius edict. It is helpful to note that Jewish Christians could start returning around AD54.
It may help to give some emphasis on considering whether the audience may just be gentiles. Das makes a decent argument for that but kind of dilutes it to say Jews could be listening in. The people in class could try read in light of a gentile-only audience to see how that could affect the reading.

Your approach seems decent but probably more for a a different letter. It is nice that you have your answers to the questions that you given everyone. But I'm pessimistic about anyone discerning the letter unless the recognize how Paul used the juridical parable in 1:18-2:1. It really takes a long explanation of the context to get sufficiently oriented for the letter. You still are helping people to read through the letter.

 

[Swordman]

I have watched and perused the questions. I was in the one who mentioned the edict. Also, it can help to note the original Jewish and gentile Christians likely first met within synagogues so that some gentiles had followed Christ for a good part of 3 decades. You also have mentioned the Claudius edict. It is helpful to note that Jewish Christians could start returning around AD54.
It may help to give some emphasis on considering whether the audience may just be gentiles. Das makes a decent argument for that but kind of dilutes it to say Jews could be listening in. The people in class could try read in light of a gentile-only audience to see how that could affect the reading.

Your approach seems decent but probably more for a a different letter. It is nice that you have your answers to the questions that you given everyone. But I'm pessimistic about anyone discerning the letter unless the recognize how Paul used the juridical parable in 1:18-2:1. It really takes a long explanation of the context to get sufficiently oriented for the letter. You still are helping people to read through the letter.

Thanks for the feedback.

I have read Das's book and understand his argument. It is a good reference for that view. In my book, I propose a tiered audience with Gentiles as primary.

Returning Jewish Christ-followers would be secondary and the general synagogue community would be a tertiary audience.

We will tackle Rom. 1:18ff after next week. That will be an interesting discussion. I will read through your write-up again in the other thread.

One of the struggles in writing for the church is that many come to the class without doing any of the reading or prep work. (I have done the same, so this is just an observation, not a condemnation.) So being prepared for the answers to the questions is always necessary.

Are you planning on being at either ETS or SBL in San Diego?

 

[Swordman]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have read Das's book and understand his argument. It is a good reference for that view. In my book, I propose a tiered audience with Gentiles as primary. Mark Nanos, a Jewish exegete, takes a similar approach.

Returning Jewish Christ-followers would be secondary and the general synagogue community would be a tertiary audience. I will cover my view next week, but will go into the details when I cover the rhetorical situation.

We will tackle Rom. 1:18ff after next week. That will be an interesting discussion. I will read through your write-up again in the other thread.

One of the struggles in writing for the church is that many come to the class without doing any of the reading or prep work. (I have done the same, so this is just an observation, not a condemnation.) So being prepared for the answers to the questions is always necessary.

Are you planning on being at either ETS or SBL in San Diego?

 

[mikesw]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have read Das's book and understand his argument. It is a good reference for that view. In my book, I propose a tiered audience with Gentiles as primary.

Returning Jewish Christ-followers would be secondary and the general synagogue community would be a tertiary audience.

We will tackle Rom. 1:18ff after next week. That will be an interesting discussion. I will read through your write-up again in the other thread.

One of the struggles in writing for the church is that many come to the class without doing any of the reading or prep work. (I have done the same, so this is just an observation, not a condemnation.) So being prepared for the answers to the questions is always necessary.

Are you planning on being at either ETS or SBL in San Diego?

I have considered going to SBL but was curious about the ETS program, which may be more biblical, based on their objectives. I don't have a budget for it, so I might do a single day trip. I have wondered if I could meet with a publisher, but I have been focused on writing and have not checked much into that.

 

[mikesw]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have read Das's book and understand his argument. It is a good reference for that view. In my book, I propose a tiered audience with Gentiles as primary.

Returning Jewish Christ-followers would be secondary and the general synagogue community would be a tertiary audience.

We will tackle Rom. 1:18ff after next week. That will be an interesting discussion. I will read through your write-up again in the other thread.

One of the struggles in writing for the church is that many come to the class without doing any of the reading or prep work. (I have done the same, so this is just an observation, not a condemnation.) So being prepared for the answers to the questions is always necessary.

Are you planning on being at either ETS or SBL in San Diego?

The reason people do not accept the gentile-only addressees is because they have not understood the juridical parable (like 2 Sam 12) and have not interpreted the letter afresh in that light. Even Das appears to just adapt the common interpretation to the gentile audience.

One paper I have in work (later draft stages) is showing how 1:18-32 appears as a history of Israel. Then I show how well Paul follows the pattern of 2 Sam 12, even within 2:1-16. The gentiles could not have joint gatherings with Jews with the animosity toward them. But I equate this with a modern day church breakup that requires a moderator (like Paul) to intervene. The break-up was forced by the Claudius edict and caused trouble for Jewish Christians returning after AD54. That is why I see the history as relevant and interesting -- especially across the 10 years ending when Paul wrote to the Romans.

I can understand that struggle in doing this series for the church with people of different levels of participation. You have to think through the leading and teaching at many levels of their understanding, and their deeper interest might come in the middle of the series.

 

[Swordman]

The reason people do not accept the gentile-only addressees is because they have not understood the juridical parable (like 2 Sam 12) and have not interpreted the letter afresh in that light. Even Das appears to just adapt the common interpretation to the gentile audience.

One paper I have in work (later draft stages) is showing how 1:18-32 appears as a history of Israel. Then I show how well Paul follows the pattern of 2 Sam 12, even within 2:1-16. The gentiles could not have joint gatherings with Jews with the animosity toward them. But I equate this with a modern day church breakup that requires a moderator (like Paul) to intervene. The break-up was forced by the Claudius edict and caused trouble for Jewish Christians returning after AD54. That is why I see the history as relevant and interesting -- especially across the 10 years ending when Paul wrote to the Romans.

I can understand that struggle in doing this series for the church with people of different levels of participation. You have to think through the leading and teaching at many levels of their understanding, and their deeper interest might come in the middle of the series.

Do you see any other juridical parables in the Jewish scriptures besides 2 Sam 12? ChatGPT (becoming a close friend of mine) also notes 2 Sam 12 as an example of a juridical parable but gives no other examples. It also notes that Rom. 1:18-32 lacks some of the characteristics of a juridical parable. I am not saying it is not a juridical parable. I am simply noting what ChatGPT says.

I have also wrestled with the idea that Rom. 1:18-32 is a commentary on Israel's failure and exile, but I think the text better first a description of Roman culture, particularly Nero's propensity for theatrics in his personal life.