Moo for a particular audience

Let's say, hypothetically, that I'm a PhD student without a lot of $$, not Reformed, and also have strong views on the New Perspective on Paul which run counter to Moos (as far as I can tell.)

Now, I read broadly and frequently outside my own religious tradition as well as counter to it. Heck, I often don't pay much attention to the tradition of the author I'm reading.However, New Testament is not my field, and I'd prefer to just avoid traditional non-NPP interpreters of it (or at least Paul's letters) at this point.

What, then, is worth acquiring of his in Logos?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JoshInRI

...geepers Ben...I hope you get more answers. I am using his Romans commentary for school and its a good one. I am not in the Reformed arena either and I didn't even know there was a new perspective on Paul. [:)]

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/894532#Comment_894532

...geepers Ben...I hope you get more answers. I am using his Romans commentary for school and its a good one. I am not in the Reformed arena either and I didn't even know there was a new perspective on Paul.

It is also known as the "Nutty Perspective on Paul"!

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/894553#Comment_894553

To OP: Considering all that you said, I would say none of his works fit your bill. If you were to get something to broaden your understanding of other perspectives, go with his NICNT.

Mike Childs

Now, I read broadly and frequently outside my own religious tradition as well as counter to it. Heck, I often don't pay much attention to the tradition of the author I'm reading. However, New Testament is not my field, and I'd prefer to just avoid traditional non-NPP interpreters of it (or at least Paul's letters) at this point.

Well, if I did believe in NPP, I would want the very best scholarly work from the other perspective in my library. That would certainly be Moo. I should think it would as essential to your library as I regard N. T. Wright essential to mine. I am not reformed, but Wesleyan, so there are plenty of places I disagree with Moo. But his scholarship is first class. And I am not intimidated by commentators with whom I disagree.

I agree with your statement that "I often don't pay much attention to the tradition of the author I'm reading." That is my approach as well. However, that seems contradicted by your next statement, as well as the title of this thread.

David J. Wilson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895203#Comment_895203

You might also want to get a copy of God and the Faithfulness of Paul
https://www.logos.com/product/136961/god-and-the-faithfulness-of-paul

but you may need to also get:

Paul: Fresh Perspectives, https://www.logos.com/product/15824/paul-fresh-perspectives, and more recent work such as
Paul and the Faithfulness of God, https://www.logos.com/product/29160/paul-and-the-faithfulness-of-god
Paul and His Recent Interpreters, https://www.logos.com/product/35202/paul-and-his-recent-interpreters

to understand where the essay authors of God and the Faithfulness of Paul are coming from....

You might also want to ensure you have the original NICNT commentary on Romans by John Murray...
https://www.logos.com/product/7458/the-epistle-to-the-romans

Michael S.

Go over to www.biblicaltraining.org and listen to some of Dr. Moo's lectures on Romans and decide for yourself. He addresses the NP some and NT Wright. The impressive thing of Moo is he is very even and fair in his dealings. He is a humble man and teaches in a way that gives fair time to various views, and then gives his own view. He is a respected NT scholar, and therefore deserves an ear, IMO.

Hope this helps.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895407#Comment_895407

In the past, I have been disappointed by both Moo and Schreiner's commentaries on Romans. For those who are willing to at least consider whether some of the claims of NPP are accurate, the arguments within the bounds of Reformed-derived Evangelical soteriology might appear as helplessly circular. I found Dunn much more interesting (WBC).

For those who are at home in these persuasions however, these commentaries constitute the best recent exegesis based on these theological commitments. As such, I would agree with an earlier post that, especially at this price and from someone who has done diligent and careful work, this would probably be a top resource to evaluate the merits of a non-NPP approach.

DMB

Not sure I untangled the query correctly. But I'd answer skip Moo (given a no bucks student Phd). Certainly well regarded, but you'll notice the reasons are circular with no real points. I scanned the sale, and passed.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895443#Comment_895443

What I could decipher out from this thread, Moo is just fine for conservative Lutherans, although may provide some wider view.

Anyway, I already bought it, too late to repent...

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895449#Comment_895449

What I could decipher out from this thread, Moo is just fine for conservative Lutherans, although may provide some wider view.

Anyway, I already bought it, too late to repent...

Bought what, the Commentary or the course?

DAL

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895511#Comment_895511

Bought what, the Commentary or the course?

Well, I bought the commentary.

As an off-topic remark, I don't buy the courses, I feel I get the information much faster from the books. But I might be wrong?

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895536#Comment_895536

I would agree with you that a commentary is more convenient to extract specific information from. A course is a different experience though. I don't buy courses because they are too expensive for me, but I would enjoy watching course videos when I am tired of reading all the time. So this would be a good way to get through material. The challenge is to gauge the level of the courses. Logos courses are not extensively reviewed as books can be and to know what to expect is a bit more difficult considering that logos user reviews reflect their own preference and level and are not peer reviews.

The courses I have from mobile ed. have a transcript of the videos. This can be read like a commentary would. Some of the text is tagged and searchable. I am not sure to which extent course resources are tagged. I know that in what I looked at, there was apparently not milestones. By contrast, the course from Zondervan on Hebrew only has videos although one can purchase separately the grammar it is based on (Van Pelt). It would be interesting to hear from users who use courses more extensively whether they "consult" them on a regular basis like they would a regular commentary and what other pros and cons they see for it.

But I am afraid that we are hijacking this thread and it might be best and more fair to the OP to relocate your question to a new thread if you want to pursue it.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895537#Comment_895537

The challenge is to gauge the level of the courses.

You can see (and filter by) FL's level for any course, even ones you don't own, right from within the Courses tool:

You can also get an idea of a course's level, by its number. 1xx = Beginner level, 2xx = Intermediate level, 3xx = Advanced level.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895542#Comment_895542

Do we have a definition of the levels? What academic level would "Advanced" correspond to? (It's official: the thread is high jacked).

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895544#Comment_895544

Do we have a definition of the levels? What academic level would "Advanced" correspond to? (It's official: the thread is high jacked).

You'll probably have to ask that question in the Mobile Ed forum, for Miles Custis (the Mobile Ed production team manager) to see and answer it.

Miles Custis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895544#Comment_895544

Do we have a definition of the levels? What academic level would "Advanced" correspond to? (It's official: the thread is high jacked).

The classifications of "Beginner," "Intermediate," and "Advanced" come from Courses Tool and are there to help you search through the different courses and reading plans available. There are other learning plans in the Courses Tool that are classified as "Beginner," "Intermediate," and "Advanced" that are not Mobile Ed courses. I can't speak for them, but I can explain the different levels for Mobile Ed courses

The different levels (100, 200, and 300) for Mobile Ed courses don't necessarily involve different levels of complexity. Sometimes they do, but more often it's a matter of focus. The 100-level course tend to have a broader focus like a survey of the New Testament (NT101) or an introduction to a broader topic. The focus narrows as you get to the 200- and 300-level. So you'll see 200-level courses exploring a specific section of NT books (NT211 or NT222) and 300-level courses that look in more detail at a specific book (NT314 to NT385).

There are some lower level courses that would probably be considered more "advanced" than courses in the same category that are higher than them. For example our Old and New Testament Exegesis courses (BI205 and BI206) are probably more advanced than a course like BI301 A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God. However, they deal with a broader set of principles for biblical interpretation than BI301 which looks at a specific topic throughout Scripture, so we classified them as 200-level.

This explanation isn't necessarily true for all our courses, but it's our general rule of thumb we use when creating new course codes, and it's a bit more accurate than saying all 100-level classes are "Beginner" and all 300-level classes are "Advanced." You will find exceptions, but it's tough to classify over 230 courses into perfectly consistent course codes [:)]. One thing worth pointing out is that we wouldn't consider there to be any "prerequisites" for our courses. You don't have to do OT101 before OT201 or OT301. Each course stands on its own (although some are obviously connected to each other).

I hope this helps and doesn't just add to anyone's confusion.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895691#Comment_895691

Nice explanation, Miles! [:)]

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895691#Comment_895691

Thanks, Miles, for taking the time to explain this.

While it is helpful to know what is the thinking of FL on the matter, I find this system not easy to relate to. In appearance, your course numbering system is patterned after that which is standard in colleges, seminaries, and universities. As a result, it creates a corresponding assumption.

I know there has been a partnership to provide degrees with I can't remember which institution. Is this system patterned after theirs? If not, perhaps it could emulate it or that of other higher institutions.

I know that many users do not take courses with an academic mindset/purpose. But when topics are presented in a systematic way by top notch scholars, well, they are academic in many ways. There may not be graded assignments like a regular course, but still. As such, perhaps it would be helpful to have some sort of sense of gradation that allows not only beginners to take entry-level or introductory courses but also seminarians and post-graduates to pick up higher level courses on subjects of interest. Correspondingly, the way that courses are labelled as beginner, intermediate, or advanced need to help customers determine where on that spectrum they would find a course.

This, of course, may not be the direction FL wants to take if its vision underlying course development looks to other priorities. In any case, here is the suggestion and perhaps a topic for further discussion.