Two New Commentaries on Romans (Origen and Penna)

Though I have lamented the inflation of commentaries, on Romans in particular, I have to mention these two since they are not in English. The first one is not exactly new since the original dates back to the third century. The second if a full length work in three volumes by Romano Penna in Italian.

Origen on Romans

Origène. Commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains. Tome I. Livres I–II. Introduction par Michel Fédou. Traduction, notes et index par Luc Brésard. Sources chrétiennes 532. Paris: Cerf, 2009.

Though Origen’s Commentary on Romans is probably the oldest full commentary on Romans, it had received little attention until recently. For several reasons Origen’s work has become respectable again in the last decades. I should stress as a reminder that though Origen wrote in Greek in the third century, the Greek text of his commentary on Romans has all but disappeared. A few excerpts have survived the meanders of history, the longest one being the Tura Papyrus discovered in 1941, which includes Rom 3.5–5.5. The only text available of Origen’s commentary is Rufinus’s Latin translation made in the very early fifth century. Rufinus was a ardent follower and promoter of Origen. His text is a shortened translation of Origen’s original made with some liberty, as was often the case back then.

Unless I am mistaken, the first modern edition of Origen’s commentary on Romans was Cocchini’s Italian translation in two volumes in 1985, 1986. This edition was based on Migne’s Text. Things changed with Bammel’s publication of a critical edition of the text in three volumes (1990, 1997, 1998, the last two were published posthumously by H. J. Frede and H. Stanjek). A German translation of Origen’s commentary was published by T. Heither in five volumes (1990–1999). A new English translation by T. P. Scheck based on Bammel’s text was published in two volumes in the The Fathers of the Church series (2001–2002).

The latest addition is this new translation into French in the Sources Chrétiennes series (somewhat the equivalent of the Loeb Library in French). This is the first of four volumes to be published. As is the case with all Sources Chrétiennes volumes, this work is a bilingual critical edition. The Latin text is Bammel’s text.

This first volume includes a lengthy introduction (9–126) with comments on Romans before Origen, on the Greek text of the commentary, on the history of the reception of the work, on Rufinus’ translation, and on the texts and the manuscripts. It also includes a theological analysis of the commentary and a bibliography. This is followed by books I–II of the commentary itself (out of X books), i.e. until the beginning of the third chapter of Romans.

Needless to say, given the importance of Origen’s commentary and of the Sources Chrétiennes Series, this is a volume to read or buy if you work on Romans and can get around in French. Otherwise, if you read English, at least read Scheck’s translation. A caveat though. As is often the case with books published by the Éditions du Cerf (in my opinion), the manufacturing and binding is not of the greatest lasting quality for the price.

Tome II. Livres III–V is now out. Sources chrétiennes 539. Cerf: Paris, 2010. It covers Rom. 3.5–3.31 (Book III), Rom. 4.1–5.11 (Book IV), and Rom. 5.12–6.10 (Book V).

Romano Penna

Romano Penna. Lettera ai Romani Scritti delle origini cristiane 6. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2004 (1–5), 2007 (6–11), 2008 (12–16).

Another worthwhile addition to the literature on Romans is this commentary in three volumes. Unless I am mistaken, this is about the only recent detailed commentary on Romans in Italian. The first volume includes an introduction to Romans (pp. 19–76). What is interesting about this work is that Penna divides Romans into 1–5, 6–8, 9–11, 12–16 (see also Dunn, Stuhlmacher, Wilckens, etc.) instead of the more common 1–4, 5–8, 9–11, 12–16 structure. Penna also brings up the problem with the common reconstruction of the composition of the Roman churches based on Claudius’ edict. He is right (or at least he holds the position I hold) to stress that despite its popularity, the whole Claudius’ edict thing is very hypothetical. To be brief, this is a solid commentary, even though not much attention is paid to the original contexts of Paul’s quotations. Unfortunately, as is still common, this commentary only has a index of names, not of references or subjects. A shame for such a work.

If you read Italian or know people from an Italian background, get a hand on this commentary. It’s nice to read something else than anglo-saxon works on Paul from time to time.