bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
The 6th edition of this book, one of D. A. Carson's perennials, is now out (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007; 160 pp.; $15 list price).
I notice that, under Romans commentaries, he no longer has Cranfield as his first choice (this may have been true of the 5th edition, as well):
The best Romans commentary now in English is the work of Douglas J. Moo (NIC; 1996; $60). Its introduction is thin, but Moo exhibits extraordinary good sense in his exegesis. No less importantly, his is the first commentary to cull what is useful from the new perspective on Paul while nevertheless offering telling criticisms of many of its exegetical and theological stances. The combination of the strong exegesis and and the rigorous interaction makes the work superior...
Now slightly dated but still very important is the "new" ICC work by C. E. B. Cranfield (2 vols.; 1975-1979; $80 for volume 1; $65 for volume 2). Occasionally, Cranfield seems more influenced by Barth than by Paul, but for thoughtful exegesis of the Greek text, with a careful weighing of alternative positions, there is nothing quite like it. (pp. 84-85)
As for John Murray on Romans:
John Murray will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (though with more theology; and note especially the useful appendices and notes);...
I've heard Murray lecture (on tape) and, frankly, I know what Carson means about the stolid heavy tread...
Here's an example of Carson's trenchant style:
Of the writing of books on Revelation there is no end: most generations produce far too many. It is a little known fact that the Puritans, for instance, produced far more commentaries on Revelation than on any other book, most of them eminently forgettable and mercifully forgotten. Something similar could be said about most periods of church history, including our own. But several excellent commentaries are available to compensate for a good deal of nonsense. (p. 145)
His top recommendations on Revelation, by the way, are Beale and Mounce.
One might not agree with everything he says, but Carson is always interesting to read, and his always carry a certain amount of weight, as an experienced commentator (Matthew, John) himself. He also reports that a new, enlarged edition of his 1984 Matthew commentary is due within a year or so.
The new year is turning as I write this...
I notice that, under Romans commentaries, he no longer has Cranfield as his first choice (this may have been true of the 5th edition, as well):
The best Romans commentary now in English is the work of Douglas J. Moo (NIC; 1996; $60). Its introduction is thin, but Moo exhibits extraordinary good sense in his exegesis. No less importantly, his is the first commentary to cull what is useful from the new perspective on Paul while nevertheless offering telling criticisms of many of its exegetical and theological stances. The combination of the strong exegesis and and the rigorous interaction makes the work superior...
Now slightly dated but still very important is the "new" ICC work by C. E. B. Cranfield (2 vols.; 1975-1979; $80 for volume 1; $65 for volume 2). Occasionally, Cranfield seems more influenced by Barth than by Paul, but for thoughtful exegesis of the Greek text, with a careful weighing of alternative positions, there is nothing quite like it. (pp. 84-85)
As for John Murray on Romans:
John Murray will guide you stolidly with the heavy tread of the proverbial village policeman (though with more theology; and note especially the useful appendices and notes);...
I've heard Murray lecture (on tape) and, frankly, I know what Carson means about the stolid heavy tread...
Here's an example of Carson's trenchant style:
Of the writing of books on Revelation there is no end: most generations produce far too many. It is a little known fact that the Puritans, for instance, produced far more commentaries on Revelation than on any other book, most of them eminently forgettable and mercifully forgotten. Something similar could be said about most periods of church history, including our own. But several excellent commentaries are available to compensate for a good deal of nonsense. (p. 145)
His top recommendations on Revelation, by the way, are Beale and Mounce.
One might not agree with everything he says, but Carson is always interesting to read, and his always carry a certain amount of weight, as an experienced commentator (Matthew, John) himself. He also reports that a new, enlarged edition of his 1984 Matthew commentary is due within a year or so.
The new year is turning as I write this...
Last edited:
