 Sell Back Your Copy for $14.50
No matter where you bought them, get up to 70% back when you sell your books at Amazon.com.
Used Price$28.33
Trade-in Price$14.50
Price after
Trade-in$13.83 |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
First, Schreiner examines Romans section by section, not verse by verse. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if you wish to lookup a specific verse you have to read through several paragraphs (or pages!) to find the discussion on the verse. Individual verses are not marked in the text.
Second, a knowledge of Greek is most helpful. When beginning a discussion on a phrase or sentence, Schreiner writes it in Greek and then provides the transliteration and the English in parentheses. For the rest of his discussion, however, he only uses the Greek letters. Often his discussion will go on for a few pages which makes it difficult for non-Greek readers to figure out which words he is talking about. I found myself frequently flipping pages trying to find out what the word he was discussing meant. Students with an elementary knowledge of Greek should not have a problem.
Schreiner's commentary is an excellent presentation of the reformed faith. However, if you have no knowledge of Greek you are probably better off using Douglas Moo's commentary.
This is indeed a commentary you need to read "text-in-hand" and be ready to follow for paragraphs at a time. Schreiner ensures the argument is generally developed in its context.
I would say that Moo's commentary on Romans (the NICNT series) is superior, however. Schreiner's argument in Romans 9-11 seemed to me to be exactly what the Jews would have wanted Paul to say. I am a Calvinist, but I find the normal Calvinist argument (which Schreiner makes) less than satisfying. Moo's argument here is more persuasive, IMHO.
Also, from time to time, Schreiner allows his Reformed Theology to get interpreted INTO the text instead of FROM the text. Although again, I am Reformed in my theology, theology must be Biblical before it is Systemitized. In general, he avoids this. But a couple of the places where he does it are very obvious. (Romans 1:16-17 being a very good example.)
Don't get me wrong, I HIGHLY reccommend this commentary. I depth, in scholarship, and--in most places--exegesis, it is painstaking. Perhaps that is what makes the rare deficiency one sees in it the more glaring. I would just say that Moo's would be the first "advanced" commentary I would get, and THEN this one.
|
