Question: How many commentaries on Romans has Douglas J. Moo written?
Answer: 5 !!! They are:
1. Romans 1-8 (WEC; Chicago: Moody, 1991)
2. ‘Romans,’ in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, eds. R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, G. J. Wenham, and D. A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1994).
3. The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996)
4. Romans (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2000)
5. Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey (EBS; Grand Rapids, Baker, 2002).
It was whilst writing some class notes on Romans that I happened upon this discovery and I honestly do not know if Dr. Moo should be given a medal or placed in a mental asylum. There are three questions I would like to ask Dr. Moo: (1) Has he figured Romans out yet, if so, in which commentary? (2) Is he sick of Romans yet? Hard to imagine being sick of Romans I know, but after 5 commentaries you have to wonder. (3) Posing as a publisher from Grand Rapids I’d like to ask him if he would be interested in writing a three volume commentary on the Greek text of Romans in P46 just so I can see the expression on his face. To make things even better I’d love to ask him in front of his wife to hear what she has to say about the matter.
Jokes aside, I think Moo’s NICNT commentary in the best going around and one I have as my course text book! Although I am anxious to see what Jewett has to say in the Hermeneia series too!
7 comments:
That's even worse, I mean more, than Darrell Bock and the Gospel of Luke! But really, Doug Moo's NICNT is an outstanding Commentary and probably the best in the series.
I happen to know that Moo is slated to write a Theology of the Book of Romans in the next several years. Having said that, his commentary on Romans is fantastic.
So Mike, if someone wants to do a thesis under your supervision on Romans, which Moo commentary(ies) do they need to have down pat and/or cited in their work? All five (plus the theology of, when it arrives)?
I'll pay for your intercontinental phone call to ask him about a sixth, btw.
His NICNT is a fine commentary, though. But as far as the best in the series, Brandon, I'm thinking Green's Luke or Marshall's John's Epistles are even better. Both absolutely outstanding in every respect. (Anyone out there know who's doing Matthew in that series?)
J.B.,
If I am not mistaken, R. T. France was slated to write the Matthew volume. It is interesting, however, that such a prominent series, which is older than my father and has produced many second editions and replacement volumes, has never managed to furnish a volume on Matthew, 2 Peter/Jude, and the Pastoral Epistles.
The reason why no-one has yet written the Matthew commentary in the NICNT series is because every person they have nominated to do it has a bad habit of dying a short time later, e.g. Herman Ridderbos, Robert Guelich [and one other I think]. Maybe its cursed! If France is down to do it, I hope he has life insurance, funeral insurance, and assurance of salvation.
Oh yeah, another thing, my associate doctoral advisor Robert L. Webb (Canada) is apparently down to do the volume on 2 Peter, Jude in the NICNT. Unfortunately, reading drafts of my doctoral thesis and editing JSHJ keeps him from doing it.
Thanks for the info--now I know where to post questions! (Just for the record, Mike, I'd rather be posting on your Communion post--great stuff there.)
If France finishes Matthew NICNT, then he'll have two Mark and two Matthew commentaries (not to mention an introduction on Matt). Granted they're of considerably different size, of course. I suppose that justifies it, although I think I'd rather have different scholars given a crack at approaching Matthew or other books.
Post a Comment