Commenting on John Murray's Romans Commentary

[bookslover]

It's interesting, the different emphases that different scholars will have regarding the same commentary. Here are two opinions of John Murray's commentary on the Book of Romans (volume 1: 1959; volume 2: 1965).

First: C. E. B. Cranfield (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 volumes, in the ICC series; volume 1 published in 1975, p. 44). Cranfield appreciates Murray's learning, carefulness, and sound judgments as an exegete, but worries that Murray's exegesis leads him to already-decided conclusions: ...but, somehow, leaves the impression, at least in the mind of one student, that the author did not offer very serious resistance to the temptation, which is, of course, common to us all, to conduct inquiries with one's mind already made up that the answer to emerge shall be the one which suits one's own preconceptions.

Then: D. A. Carson (New Testament Commentary Survey, 6th edition, published in 2007, p. 88.) Strictly as a writer, Carson notes that Murray was no stylist (John Murray will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman), but has an appreciation for the way Murray brings out Paul's theology (something often lacking in Bible commentaries), and thinks highly of the value of Murray's appendices and notes.

So, Cranfield is concerned that Murray, being a conservative Reformed theologian, is determined that his exegesis will arrive only at the standard conservative Reformed interpretation of Romans, while Carson, while appreciative of Murray's theological strengths, wishes Murray had been a better writer.

As I said: interesting.

 

[MW]

Conservative reformed commentators in general have had to wear this kind of criticism. There is a natural suspicion that is entertained against men whose consciences are bound to a system of doctrine which they find to be clearly taught in the Scripture.

I don't think anyone will dissent from Carson's remark on Murray's language. Someone once commented that Murray so carefully chose his language that it is difficult to conceive of a harder way of putting things. But those who value preciseness of argument will appreciate the care taken.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Conservative reformed commentators in general have had to wear this kind of criticism. There is a natural suspicion that is entertained against men whose consciences are bound to a system of doctrine which they find to be clearly taught in the Scripture.

I don't think anyone will dissent from Carson's remark on Murray's language. Someone once commented that Murray so carefully chose his language that it is difficult to conceive of a harder way of putting things. But those who value preciseness of argument will appreciate the care taken.

I agree entirely. Prof. Murray's commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is an example of clarity. Whether you agree or disagree with him, you have no trouble with ambiguity. I believe it is some of his finest work.

 

[Somerset]

So a conservative theologian gets into hot water for writing a theologically conservative work?

 

[timmopussycat]

So a conservative theologian gets into hot water for writing a theologically conservative work?

Only from liberals who haven't considered that they are vulnerable to the same problem with respect to their own preconceptions.

 

[Somerset]

Liberals with preconceptions - surely not?

 

[bookslover]

Conservative reformed commentators in general have had to wear this kind of criticism. There is a natural suspicion that is entertained against men whose consciences are bound to a system of doctrine which they find to be clearly taught in the Scripture.

I don't think anyone will dissent from Carson's remark on Murray's language. Someone once commented that Murray so carefully chose his language that it is difficult to conceive of a harder way of putting things. But those who value preciseness of argument will appreciate the care taken.

I agree entirely. Prof. Murray's commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is an example of clarity. Whether you agree or disagree with him, you have no trouble with ambiguity. I believe it is some of his finest work.

Todd, personally, I believe that Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (1957) is his masterpiece.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Conservative reformed commentators in general have had to wear this kind of criticism. There is a natural suspicion that is entertained against men whose consciences are bound to a system of doctrine which they find to be clearly taught in the Scripture.

I don't think anyone will dissent from Carson's remark on Murray's language. Someone once commented that Murray so carefully chose his language that it is difficult to conceive of a harder way of putting things. But those who value preciseness of argument will appreciate the care taken.

I agree entirely. Prof. Murray's commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is an example of clarity. Whether you agree or disagree with him, you have no trouble with ambiguity. I believe it is some of his finest work.

Todd, personally, I believe that Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (1957) is his masterpiece.

Richard, I agree with you. I must have mind-cramped earlier. Truly a great book. We might also mention the series of articles on Divorce. However, the commentary on Romans is still in my opinion very high on the list. All these are excellent.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Principles of Conduct gets my vote for his best work. Redemption Accomplished and Applied is also fantastic.

 

[Rom]

When studying Romans, I found that Murray's commentary was the gold-standard. A wonderful work. And now I just found out about Principles of Conduct. Once again the learned elders of the PuritanBoard have added to my ever growing reading list

 

[reaganmarsh]

Once again the learned elders of the PuritanBoard have added to my ever growing reading list

Brother, every time I log on to the PB, my reading list seems to grow a few hundred pages longer!

This has been a helpful discussion, brethren, even as a mere observant.

 

[MarieP]

Isn't C. E. B. Cranfield a conservative himself? And his own commentary on Romans has been recommended on this very discussion board.

Both Cranfield and Carson have written on Romans- so it could simply be that Murray didn't write how they would have written it. Very interesting quotes!