KRUSE-ROMANS

I have bought the commentary on Romans by Collin Kruse in the Pillar series. This is the replacement for the highly regarded commentary by Leon Morris (Also available in Logos.).

From what I have read I am very impressed with the comprehensiveness of Kruse's commentary. He is not afraid to tackle difficult passages and where there are different interpretations he gives them to the full.

http://www.logos.com/product/20705/pillar-new-testament-commentary-pauls-letter-to-the-romans

Kruse's commentary is not ranked yet on Best Commentaries.Com. It certainly deserves to be in the top five, If not the top 3 commentaries on Romans. What do you think?

Is this the best commentary on Romans in Logos that you can buy individually ?

How does it compare with Moo's NICNT commentary on Romans Pros and cons?

P A Smile

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NB.Mick

Is this the best commentary on Romans in Logos that you can buy individually ?

The point is that "best" is an evaluation that certainly depends on your criteria, especially on the purpose you want to accomplish, your position etc.

You know that e.g. bestcommentaries tags the respective works with technical versus pastoral versus devotional, Denver seminary uses a three-segments grouping as well. Denver put Kruse as well as Moo into the middle section (both with the recommendation star) - for a more technical treatment they recommend e.g. Schreiner's work in the BECNT series (the second-highest rated on bestcommentaries who give both Schreiner and Moo the same T and P tagging, though).

Since you show interest in "difficult passages and different interpretations": I'd expect both Moo and Schreiner to take a reformed position (which is surely true of the Pillar series as well). Even if you want to stay in the evangelical-conservative field, it may be worthwile to balance with a non-calvinist commentary, such as Leroy Forlines or Grant Osborne even though they may be slightly less technical than Kruse.

DAL

I love the Pillar's series, and I'm sure I'll buy Kruse's volume in the near future, but I wish they would give us commentaries on the books of the NT we don't have: e.g. Pillar's on the Pastoral Epistles, Pillar's on Revelation, etc.

They should focus on finishing the series first, and then replace the volumes that they wish to replace, not the other way around. I feel like buying a book twice (though I know that's not the case).

DAL

Simon Pleasants

I agree that it's strange that Cruse's commentary on Romans doesn't even have a score on BestCommentaries.com yet, especially as it is in a major series and has received some good reviews on Amazon. It might be worth alerting the site maintainer using the contact form on the site.

I notice that newer commentaries often tend to have lower scores than older commentaries and that their ratings tend to increase with time. I think it's because of the algorithm they use to calculate the score.

I've bought the commentary but haven't had occasion to use it yet.

DAL

What do you think?

Is this the best commentary on Romans in Logos that you can buy individually ?

How does it compare with Moo's NICNT commentary on Romans Pros and cons?

P A

LOL I guess all of us skipped your questions, so here's my humble shot at answering them.

What do I think (about the Kruse volume on Romans)? I'll tell you when I buy it soon, very soon.

Is it the best commentary on Romans? That's subject to opinion, but I could say is one of the best (just by looking at the table of contents and seeing that he's dealing with the "new perspective" issue).

Now, I don't have Moo's NICNT but I have his "Encountering the Book of Romans;" and he's great on it. I would say less technical than the NICNT volume, but very, very informative -- and by looking at the table of contents from NICNT and Encountering the Book of Romans I'd say a lot of the material overlaps.

Pros and Cons, I cannot say, but I could say that both commentaries (Kruse and Moo) would supplement one another.

Blessings!

DAL

Mark Barnes

Is this the best commentary on Romans in Logos that you can buy individually ?

In my view, there's no one definitive commentary on Romans yet. I find that several of the important commentaries have elements that I like and are missing in the others.

Moo is probably my favourite, but he has a view of righteousness that's influenced by Lutheranism that affects his interpretation of some of the important middle chapters in a way that doesn't convince me.
Murray is solid and dependable, but somewhat dated and not always engaging. Morris would be similar.
Schreiner I like a lot, but (surprisingly, given his other writings) doesn't engage theologically as well as Moo.
Kruse I don't know well enough to pass judgement. It looks pretty promising.
Dunn gives a useful insight through a NPP lens, and I've found helpful if only to re-convince me that he's wrong!
Cranfield is surprisingly good, and I find myself going back to it more than I expected. His exegesis is better than his theologising, but there's much more of the former than the latter, so that's OK.

So, to answer your question, I don't know [;)].

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/490996#Comment_490996

I have:

Matera in Paideia 2010. 416 pages. I've read it twice. I've had it for ~1¼ years, I don't remember exactly, I may have the receipt here somewhere.
Jewett in Hermeneia 2006 1,000 pages. (I have the full OT/NT set, except Upgrade 2.)

I find Matera especially good and would put it above the commentaries mentioned by others in this thread.

I haven't had time to review or read through Jewett and am using it as reference for now.

I don't like NPP, I don't buy any such commentaries.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491024#Comment_491024

I find Matera especially good and would put it above the commentaries mentioned by others in this thread.

On what basis?

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491025#Comment_491025

Graham, I was just about to attach my reviews:
1 Clem, Ignatius, Papias, Ro
An example from 8:1-39. It's...
EDIT: one more: Paideia Romans by Frank J....

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491026#Comment_491026

Graham, I was just about to attach my reviews:
1 Clem, Ignatius, Papias, Ro
An example from 8:1-39. It's...
EDIT: one more: Paideia Romans by Frank J....

Thanks, Unix. Apologies for responding before you had provided the reviews.

However, these reviews don't relate - as far as I can see - to the other commentaries mentioned in this thread so I'm still left unsure the basis for your ranking.

Graham

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491033#Comment_491033

Well, I know about all the commentaries that Logos offers and have been reading a lot of reviews, mostly on Amazon and listening to opinions on the Logos forum. Then read the Paideia Matera Romans commentary once again and confirmed my opinion. I haven't took the time to write down my impressions when comparing commentaries:

However, these reviews don't relate - as far as I can see - to the other commentaries mentioned in this thread so I'm still left unsure the basis for your ranking.

Giovanni Baggio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491026#Comment_491026

UNIX not offending you dude but you look just like the guy that comes out on the TV show "How I Met Your Mother" his name is Marshal and he's married to Lilie [:P]

Giovanni

Question how do your reviews relate to the commentaries mentioned? I never saw a review on neither one just on random not related to other commentaries posts on a different forum.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491024#Comment_491024

I don't like NPP

Please forgive my ignorance, what is NPP?

-Dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491182#Comment_491182

Nevermind… I did figure it out I believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

-Dan

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491182#Comment_491182

I don't like NPP

Please forgive my ignorance, what is NPP?

-Dan

Wild guess here: New Perspectives on Paul = NPP

I just bought my copy of Kruse and when I saw NPP here the first thing that came to mind was the New Perspectives on Paul. I'll start reading this new puppy tomorrow during my devotional time. It looks very promising (Kruse on Romans does). I won't promise a review, but at least I'll know more about him to be able to compare him to my other commentaries.

DAL

Edit: Here's a link to a lesson by Carson on that. Wow, didn't realize NT Wright held the NPP views: https://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/the-new-perspective-on-paul/id378879786?mt=10#ls=1

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/491176#Comment_491176

Like I already said that I was familiar with the commentaries suggested in this thread, when I wrote the reviews - i.e. I made a conscious choice when selecting Paideia Matera Romans and that choice was confirmed by my further investigations. (Now I don't have time to discuss this further this week, first I have a test tomorrow evening, and Friday I have to do metal worshop work in my proprietary firm. ½ of the weekend I'll spend with my girlfriend, + I'll go to Church and catch up on reading):

Question how do your reviews relate to the commentaries mentioned?

I realized that. I read 3 works by Wright, none of which are about Paul:

Wow, didn't realize NT Wright held the NPP views