Romans Within Judaism?

What may a reader expect to find, and not find, in this ‘social identity’ commentary? A few examples will illustrate what not to expect. In standard commentaries on Romans, extended lexicographical study is given the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ in 1:17; Campbell paraphrases ‘righteousness’ as ‘integrity’ and says no more (p. 65). Standard commentaries today are compelled to address the ethical issues raised by 1:26-27; the verses are not discussed by Campbell. The grammatical issue at 2:27 (whether the genitive with διά is instrumental or used [as in 4:11] of ‘attendant circumstance’) is not noted; without discussion, Campbell’s argument is based on the assumption that the phrase is instrumental (p. 102). The theological issue whether Paul speaks of universal salvation in 5:18-19 goes unmentioned. In short, Campbell did not intend to write yet another standard commentary on Romans. By way of compensation, three aspects of what Campbell does provide may be noted. First, while insisting that Romans is a letter, not a diatribe, Campbell consistently draws attention to instances of ‘diatribal style’ in Paul’s epistle. ‘Speaking in the voice of an imaginary interlocutor,’ Paul can criticize types of conduct without the offense that would have been caused by a more direct approach (pp. 40, 374). Second, Campbell repeatedly attributes significance to the Roman context of Paul’s letter. ‘It is probable,’ he comments, that the background to Paul’s usage of the term ‘gospel’ ‘lies in the “emperor ideology” in which the “good tidings” of the dawn of a new era are proclaimed with the accession of an emperor to the throne’ (p. 66); the chain of quotations in Romans 3:1018 reveals ‘the true nature of the Pax Romana as a system of violence contrary to its own claims for universal peace’ (p. 122); ‘it is possible that Paul deliberately chose to explain the role of Christ as bringer of (re)conciliation in contrast to the role ascribed publicly to the Caesar’ (p. 131); and so on. Third, Campbell interprets Romans as a letter written for an exclusively gentile audience, agreeing with (and frequently referencing) the work of ‘Paul within Judaism’ scholars. Since, however, there is a good deal of diversity within that ‘school,’ I confine attention, in this brief review, to Campbell’s own positions without commenting on their relationship to the work of other scholars. For Campbell’s Paul, the boundary line between those who belong to the people of God and all others lies between those who worship solely the God of Israel and those who do not. Borrowing language from social identity theorists, Campbell sees Paul addressing gentiles inclined to see the people of God as made up exclusively of Christ-followers (the ‘in-group’); Paul wants them rather to see themselves as ‘part of a larger superordinate group’ (pp. 26, 31, 95, 393). Their ‘in-group’ Romans Within Judaism? 1197294 EXT0010.1177/00145246231197294Book of the Month book-review2023