Opinion: Cranfield on Romans

I see that the https://www.logos.com/product/42968/a-critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-epistle-to-the-romans is on sale this month ($49.99). I know it is highly regarded and often cited.

My question is "If I have Moo, Schreiner, Murray, Dunn, Bruce and Stott as my "go to" commentaries on Romans would Cranfield add anything?

I love Romans and have thought about this set for a bit but now that it's on sale I am wondering if it can offer anything the others do not....

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bruce Dunning

Mike, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about this. One of the things I remember well about my days in Bible college is really appreciating reading Cranfield on Romans and I'd love to have it in my library.

Kenneth Neighoff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874966#Comment_874966

If you have the concordance tool. Use the concordance tool to see how many times these authors quote him and let that help you decide.

But, I would say. Buy it.

Clifford B. Kvidahl

I see that the https://www.logos.com/product/42968/a-critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-epistle-to-the-romans is on sale this month ($49.99). I know it is highly regarded and often cited.

My question is "If I have Moo, Schreiner, Murray, Dunn, Bruce and Stott as my "go to" commentaries on Romans would Cranfield add anything?

I love Romans and have thought about this set for a bit but now that it's on sale I am wondering if it can offer anything the others do not....

What do you think?

Mike,

You will be hard pressed to find a more thorough commentary on Romans than what you find in Cranfield's superb work! His exegesis of the Greek text is exquisite and his theological insight is unmatched. One of the things that I find valuable is that because it was written before the NPP, it is not bogged down with too much discussion on these matters. Cranfield is thorough, fair, and at times pastorally sensitive.

I would recommend it to you, even with the lineup you currently have. I tend to think it is better than those you mention above, but I come to commentaries differently than most. I come first and foremost to get answers on Greek syntax and related matters. I may or may not return for theological insight. For me, the ICC is the first commentary that I turn to if needed.

Cliff

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874966#Comment_874966

Personally I think you would be better served getting Richard Longnecker's NIGTC commentary on Romans if you are wanting another critical commentary. The one thing about Canfield is that his commentary came out before the huge debate on Romans took place over the issue of Paul and Justification. The "New Perspective" movement has for better or worse changed how everyone interprets Romans. They have had to engage E P Sanders, James D G Dunn and N T Wright.

On the other hand you may want a first class critical commentary on Romans before the New Perspective came out.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874972#Comment_874972

D A Carson has said about the New Perspective, that it brought a needed corrective to our view and understanding of Judaism in the time of Paul, the problem was, he felt they went to far with the New Perspective.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874973#Comment_874973

Get the Cranfield set- you'll be glad to leave all the NPP non-sense behind.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874972#Comment_874972

Personally I think you would be better served getting Richard Longnecker's NIGTC commentary on Romans if you are wanting another critical commentary. The one thing about Canfield is that his commentary came out before the huge debate on Romans took place over the issue of Paul and Justification. The "New Perspective" movement has for better or worse changed how everyone interprets Romans. They have had to engage E P Sanders, James D G Dunn and N T Wright.

On the other hand you may want a first class critical commentary on Romans before the New Perspective came out.

Would Hultgren: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary make a good substitute?

James Burnett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874971#Comment_874971

Mike,

You will be hard pressed to find a more thorough commentary on Romans than what you find in Cranfield's superb work! His exegesis of the Greek text is exquisite and his theological insight is unmatched. One of the things that I find valuable is that because it was written before the NPP, it is not bogged down with too much discussion on these matters. Cranfield is thorough, fair, and at times pastorally sensitive.

I would recommend it to you, even with the lineup you currently have. I tend to think it is better than those you mention above, but I come to commentaries differently than most. I come first and foremost to get answers on Greek syntax and related matters. I may or may not return for theological insight. For me, the ICC is the first commentary that I turn to if needed.

Cliff

I second what Cliff says here.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874996#Comment_874996

I also agree with Cliff and Mike. Cranfield is superb

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

My question is "If I have Moo, Schreiner, Murray, Dunn, Bruce and Stott as my "go to" commentaries on Romans would Cranfield add anything?

Four screen shots show Romans 1:16-17 from Cranfield:

Keep Smiling [:)]

Mike Tourangeau

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875023#Comment_875023

Keep Smiling

Thank you for all the input and esp the screenshots (Keep Smilling 4 Jesus) they are very helpful. Having read a bit of his treatment on Rom 1 I think this is a "Buy"

Thanks again!

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875027#Comment_875027

Would Hultgren: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary make a good substitute? Could anyone provide an opinion, now that OP has an answer?? I thank you.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875063#Comment_875063

Would Hultgren: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary make a good substitute? Could anyone provide an opinion, now that OP has an answer?? I thank you.

I am not familiar with him. The book looks good. Whether a substitute or not, I do not know. All I know is Cranfield is really helpful.

Clifford B. Kvidahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875063#Comment_875063

Would Hultgren: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary make a good substitute? Could anyone provide an opinion, now that OP has an answer?? I thank you.

Scooter,

If you are asking if it is a good substitute for Cranfield, I would say no. This is only because they are two different commentaries, with two different audiences in mind. Cranfield's ICC is academic in the purest sense; Hultgren is going to be more theological in its focus.

Cliff

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875106#Comment_875106

Scooter,

If you are asking if it is a good substitute for Cranfield, I would say no. This is only because they are two different commentaries, with two different audiences in mind. Cranfield's ICC is academic in the purest sense; Hultgren is going to be more theological in its focus.

Cliff

Thank you for your reply. I do not read Greek, so Hultgren sounds more of what I need; have added it to my wish list. I am working thru Moo, now.

TCBlack

My question is "If I have Moo, Schreiner, Murray, Dunn, Bruce and Stott as my "go to" commentaries on Romans would Cranfield add anything?

I don't have all of those, but I do have some of them. That said, IMHO Cranfields contribution is substantial and I used it quite heavily while preaching through Romans.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875121#Comment_875121

Cranfield is superb. The one note of reference, is that using it takes an assumption that you have or read the older Sanday and Headlam ICC volume. This is not a big deal, but from a scholar's standpoint, it should be pointed out.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875135#Comment_875135

Cranfield is superb. The one note of reference, is that using it takes an assumption that you have or read the older Sanday and Headlam ICC volume. This is not a big deal, but from a scholar's standpoint, it should be pointed out.

This is correct. Cranfield expects you to be familiar with Sanday and Headlam. I had S&H before Cranfield and know that Cranfield is really not complete by itself. It is superb, but there are gaps that he relies on S&H to fill in.

That said, it is more for Greek readers than those working in English.

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875135#Comment_875135

Cranfield is superb. The one note of reference, is that using it takes an assumption that you have or read the older Sanday and Headlam ICC volume. This is not a big deal, but from a scholar's standpoint, it should be pointed out.

In what way does he reference the older works? How much of a loss would it be if I don' t have them?

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875146#Comment_875146

I really can't remember any segments that left me baffled even though I lacked the former volume. IOW I didn't have nor need Sanday and Headlam to benefit from Cranfield.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875149#Comment_875149

I really can't remember any segments that left me baffled even though I lacked the former volume. IOW I didn't have nor need Sanday and Headlam to benefit from Cranfield.

It's more of a scholar issue. Those who are familiar with the earlier work would give attention to their use of Gifford's work on Romans. Scholars invariably stand on the shoulders of those who precede them. It's an ivory tower understanding that most of us simply do not have.

BriM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/874972#Comment_874972

The one thing about Canfield is that his commentary came out before the huge debate on Romans took place over the issue of Paul and Justification. The "New Perspective" movement has for better or worse changed how everyone interprets Romans

He managed one paragraph of interaction with NPP in the tenth edition preface (i.e. the Logos version):

"PREFACE TO THE TENTH IMPRESSION

In the last two decades a vast amount has been published on Romans or having a bearing on it. While I have welcomed the fresh light which has been shed and am grateful for having been forced to return to the text again and again, and seriously to ponder new questions, my understanding of the Epistle has not been significantly changed and my enthusiasm for it remains undiminished.

Durham, September, 2001. C. E. B. C."

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875157#Comment_875157

It's an ivory tower understanding

I call that the Ivory echo chamber. I am familiar with it.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875149#Comment_875149

I have the abridged Spanish version of it and I find it very useful. If it had a bigger discount, I would get the full version in English. A lot of scholars quote Cranfield as he was a great scholar himself. Very thorough in his exegesis.

DAL

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875146#Comment_875146

In what way does he reference the older works? How much of a loss would it be if I don' t have them?

I can't recall from my experience. I do remember reading Cranfield, noting that something he didn't cover was covered well in S&H and thereby understanding what was meant by needing both.

How much are you left out by not owning both? Probably not much. If you consult a second or third commentary you might probably will be out even less.

Mike Childs

I see that the https://www.logos.com/product/42968/a-critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-epistle-to-the-romans is on sale this month ($49.99). I know it is highly regarded and often cited.

My question is "If I have Moo, Schreiner, Murray, Dunn, Bruce and Stott as my "go to" commentaries on Romans would Cranfield add anything?

I love Romans and have thought about this set for a bit but now that it's on sale I am wondering if it can offer anything the others do not....

What do you think?

Well, no doubt you have some great commentaries on Romans. Who can tell you how many commentaries you need? It is a personal thing.

But I will say this. I have all those (and more) also. I love Moo's commentary. However, I will say that Cranfield is one of the few Romans commentaries that does add to the others. To me it is the very best on Romans, but that is always a matter of opinion.

Do you have to have any one of the many commentaries on Romans to understand the book? No, not even Cranfield. Is Cranfield worth adding to your library? Yes, to me he definitely was worth adding, and I paid more than the on sale price now.

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875219#Comment_875219

Does anyone know when the sale ends for this item? Thank you in advance!

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875417#Comment_875417

Does anyone know when the sale ends for this item? Thank you in advance!

It is featured in the January sale - https://www.logos.com/products/search?Product+Type=Monthly+Product+Sale&view=grid&start=&sort=savings&pageSize=60&unlocked=no so it should be available for the rest of the month. So there is still more time...

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875419#Comment_875419

Thank you Bruce...I will buy it next week in that case

Mike Tourangeau

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/875146#Comment_875146

Just following up on my own question. I purchased this while on sale and I have been working my way through it. I have not been disappointed. Excellent!