Unlocking Romans on RBL
The Review of Biblical Literature just put up a review of Unlocking Romans.
I find book reviews fascinating. One is never sure what a reviewer will pick up on or what they’re bringing to the table with them that is shaping their perception of the work.
In this case, the reviewer chose to hone in on three passages where he thinks reference to Jesus’ resurrection, or its significance, is somewhat questionable: Romans 1:4, 4:17, and 8:12-39. Probably one of the most substantive points of critique in my reading of Romans is what to do with the absence of resurrection in 1:18-3:26. (Maybe that’s why I’m hoping I agree with Douglas Campbell’s reading of the letter!) I’ll need to tackle this more head-on at some point. Eventually I should make a list of the issues folks have an give some sort of super-rejoinder in the spirit of continuing conversation and dialogue.
I found the conclusion to the review a bit puzzling. He suggested that resurrection is a key to Paul’s theology more generally, but also that I did not sufficiently take the particularity of Rome’s purpose into account. I’ll have to ponder how giving attention to both a more contextualized and less contextualized understanding of resurrection in Paul might have helped things.
Truth be told, I think that the viability of my thesis comes down to the strength of Romans 1:1-7 to provide an interpretive key for making sense of Romans 1:14-17. The parallels are sufficiently substantial that I continue to think that the presence of Jesus’ resurrection in 1:4 tells us what it means, in the first instance, that the Righteous One will live from faith.
I’d love to get some conversation going here about some of the key texts. I’ll let the comments tell me if that would be a worthy pursuit.
Hi Daniel,
I’m busy reading your book at the moment. It’s a great read! I will postpone commenting on it for now – I want to finish it first.
I’m busy with a PhD at Nijmegen in the Netherlands. I still have to finalize my research proposal but it will be something as follows: Resurrection as motivation for behaviour in 1 Corinthians.
I did a MA at Durham (UK) last year under Francis Watson focussing on the reception of Paul’s understanding of the resurrection body in Irenaeus, Tertullian and Marcion.
Will be great to keep contact with you! Hey, check out my BLOG and leave a comment there if you like! resurrectionhope.blogspot.com
Frederik Mulder
Thanks for stopping by, Frederik. I’m glad you’re enjoying the book. I’ll look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in due course.
It sounds like you’re onto an exciting project: Unlocking 1 Corinthians: Resurrection and the Paraenesis of God! Only joking. I look forward to hearing more from your research as that progresses as well.
The suggestion in the review that the reference to resurrection in 1.4 may be to the general resurrection rather than Jesus’ resurrection strikes me as somewhat problemative (understatement warning).
The idea that in writing on the resurrection in Romans one might struggle to factor all the other themes of Romans in a proportionate way (e.g. Jesus’ death as the reviewer points out) is probably a reasonable general issue to ponder.
Sorry, I should have said “Hi” as well.
Pete, so good to have you pop in! I will endeavor to ponder in accordance with the dictates of reason.