Romans: Text, Readers, & the History of Interpretation (Stephen Westerholm) - Review

ROMANS: Text, Readers, and the History of Interpretation. By Stephen Westerholm. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2022. 418 pages.

                Down through the ages, Paul's Letter to the Romans has stood out as one of the foundational biblical texts for Christian theology and spirituality. Augustine, Luther, and Wesley all pointed to it as the key to their own conversion experiences, though for Wesley it was hearing Luther's preface to Romans that caused his heart to be strangely warmed. Karl Barth’s commentary on Romans made quite a splash in the Post World I era. Preachers still look back to these and other interpreters of Romans for insight. So, it’s no surprise that a plethora of commentaries and studies of this Pauline letter have emerged. Making sense of that reality requires appropriate guidance, especially concerning the history of interpretation.

                The book under review here was authored by Stephen Westerholm, professor emeritus of early Christianity at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. The book serves in many ways as an extended introduction to Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He divides the book into three parts. Part 1 provides a look at the various texts on which our contemporary readings are based. He begins with Papyrus 46, the earliest copy of Romans, which dates to somewhere around the year 200 CE. While this copy of Romans that comes to us is not complete, it is the oldest extant copy. From there, Westerholm takes us on a tour of texts and versions, including variants of P46, which ends at Romans 16:23. After this lengthy discussion, Westerholm moves on to other early Greek manuscripts, followed by a discussion of the major manuscript groupings—Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. For readers interested in the manuscript history of Romans, Westerholm provides a helpful introduction. Perhaps the greatest value of this section is that the author helps the reader better understand how biblical texts were passed down through time.

                Part 2 (chapter 2) turns to the first readers of the letter to the Romans. He introduces us to the community that first read/heard this letter. That is the church of Rome. In introducing us to these readers, he explores the social and economic status, as well as the possible ethnicity of the readers. Central to this chapter is the question of whether the recipients were largely Jewish or Gentile. He speaks of the assemblies in Rome that would have received the text, the social and economic status of the readers, along with their ethnicity --- especially whether this is a largely Gentile community. In exploring this question, Westerholm offers a word about the "Paul within Judaism" School. As for the "Paul within Judaism" school. This school insists that Paul didn't convert to Christianity and lived his entire life within Judaism, even observing Jewish law. Accordingly, Paul would have assumed all Jews were called to do the same. Thus, the focus of the letter is Gentile believers, with the question being addressed was whether the Gospel message was universalized to include both Jews and Gentiles or only Gentiles. Westerholm believes this perspective, that Paul’s message applied only to Gentiles, is misguided. Paul might have Gentiles as his primary audience, but he also believed that Jews should be evangelized.

                These first two sections/chapters cover the first quarter or so of the book. When we get to Part 3, Westerholm breaks the conversation into four chapters. In this section, he focuses on the History of Interpretation. He begins with the Patristic Period, looking first at Origen, after which he moves to the Antiochian interpreters including John Chrysostom. In this study, Origen represents the Alexandrian tradition, while Chrysostom, together with two others, represents the more literal Antiochene tradition. Finally, Westerholm turns to the Western, Latin traditions. Here he focuses on Augustine and Pelagius. While Augustine didn’t write a commentary on Romans what he did write set the course for future discussions of Romans. The most important interlocuter, the interpreter who drew his attention was Pelagius. It is clear that Westerholm sides with Augustine. As we move forward in the book, the focus will be on Western interpreters. While chapter three covers the Patristic writers, in chapter four, Westerholm takes note of two Medieval interpreters, Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas. As for the latter, Aquinas followed Augustine's lead in many ways, while modifying that trajectory.

                Everything we look at to this point leads to the focus of chapters five and six. The first of these two chapters focuses on interpreters from the Sixteenth Century. He offers sub-chapters on two Humanist interpreters, John Colet and Erasmus, both of whom were Roman Catholic, but who sought to root their faith in original texts. In that regard, Erasmus created a Greek text that would serve as the foundation of many future translations, including that of Luther. From these two figures, we move to Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, and English translations of Romans, starting with Wycliffe’s fourteenth-century translation, and continuing to Tyndale and his successors.

                While Chapter Five focuses on the Sixteenth Century, Chapter Six introduces us to interpreters of what he calls “The Modern Period.” That period extends from the seventeenth century to the early twentieth century. In this chapter we look at fifteen individuals or groups of interpreters, beginning with the Pietist Philipp Jakob Spener and ending with Karl Barth. Along the way, we'll encounter figures such as Richard Baxter, John Locke, James Arminius, Wesley, and others. Most are Protestant, though he does include two Roman Catholic interpreters—Augustin Calmet and Robert Witham. These two scholars were involved in the production of the Douai-Rheims translation. For me, the chapter on Barth's commentary was the most helpful and interesting, but then I have a fondness for Barth.

                Chapter Seven of Westerholm’s study of the history of interpretation of Romans provides us with a summary of what we encountered along the way. Here he takes note of the various topics that emerged along the way.

                Westerholm is focused on the Western trajectory. He leaves behind the eastern churches after Chrysostom. Perhaps that is natural in that Westerholm is a Protestant and thus is influenced by the Western trajectory. Nevertheless, while I’m not an expert on the history of interpretation of the Letter to the Romans, I would assume that the Eastern churches produced interpretations of Romans in the years following Chrysostom, who was Augustine’s contemporary. In ending his discussion with Barth, whose commentary proved to be revolutionary when it comes to future interpretations, he leaves the question of what came after Barth’s commentary on Romans to other scholars. Understandably, he does this. Unfortunately, that choice leaves us with a history of Romans that is almost entirely European (or European-American) in orientation. The interpreters he lifts up are all white and male. Interestingly, he chose to add an appendix to this study that focuses on the interpretation of Romans by another white male European, the conservative British (Welsh origins) preacher, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who devoted twelve years to expositing Romans on Friday evenings at Westminster Chapel, London. I'm not exactly sure why he is included here, other than he has proven influential among evangelicals in the Twentieth Century and beyond.

                So, who is this Westerholm’s Romans for? I would say that it will prove valuable to interpreters of Paul’s letter to the Romans who wish to know how we got this text and how it has been interpreted, especially among Western/European interpreters. As one trained as a historical theologian, I can see some value in the book, especially since he points us to key themes in Romans that have been interpreted in different ways by different interpreters. At the same time, to the non-New Testament scholar, some of this seems to get into the weeds. Of course, I was disappointed by the lack of attention to Eastern interpreters, and non-Europeans. Still, it should prove useful as a reference tool for those studying Romans.