Book Notes: Roetzel on 2 Corinthians

I’ve given up the enterprise of reading this book through from cover to cover, so these notes are based on using it as reference while I’m reading 2 Corinthians itself.

The fact is that I found the book impossible to read straight through.  As I mentioned previously in using it as a comparison to Matera’s commentary, Roetzel divides the book into five letters:

1. A Letter of Appeal for the Offering (8:1-24)
2. First Letter Defending Paul’s Ministry ( 2:14-7:4)
3. Second Letter of Defense or The Letter of Tears (10:1-13:10)
4. The Reconciling Letter (1:1-2:13; 7:5-16; 13:11-13)
5. Offering Letter to the Churches of Achaia (9:1-15)

I find this reconstruction unconvincing not because it isn’t well thought out.  In fact, it proposes a rather interesting set of correspondence.  What I find unconvincing is any theory of why it would have been combined in the way it was by any redactor.  I simply see no logic, and Roetzel doesn’t seem to provide any, for why anyone should join the various letters together in this particular fashion. In my view, that is a fatal flaw.  What does the letter mean as constructed?  Why would one construct it in that particular way.

Since Roetzel then writes the commentary according to his reconstruction, one almost is required to accept the reconstruction in order to read it comfortably.  Now that isn’t necessarily a criticism.  I suspect Roetzel would say that a person who follows the canonical form is requiring people to accept that (re)construction.  (See his comments on hypotheses on pages 24-25.)

Using the index, one can still find the commentary useful in studying particular passages, and the introduction to the whole book as well as the introductions to the various sections are still quite useful.

Due to space constraints, the commentary covers many of the major theological issues in the book very briefly.  That will actually be a feature to many readers, especially to pastors who are trying to prepare a sermon.  On the other hand, the pastor doing sermon preparation will have to work through the table of contents to find where his or her particular passage is covered.

The language of the commentary is commendably clear, easy to read, and the referencing is light, and does not use footnotes.  That makes individual sections easy to read and to follow, again an advantage to the pastor of Sunday School teacher wishing to find the answer to some issue of interpretation.  Omissions in the discussion are entirely due to the size of the commentary.  You’ll find a great deal of information for the size of book involved.

In the final analysis, I would have to say that I cannot overcome the negative factor of the book’s arrangement, and that goes back to my personal evaluation of the author’s hypothetical reconstruction of the book.  Were one to accept his reconstruction, the same things that I find annoying might be seen as helpful.

As it stands, I must say that I prefer Matera’s commentary in all ways, and give this one three stars out of five.