Review van David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary (OTL), WJK; in JETS 40/2

Review van David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary (OTL), WJK; in  JETS 40/2

Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary. By David L. Petersen. OTL. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1995, xxi + 233 pp., $28.00.

This commentary is a sequel to Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (1984) in the same series and by the same author.

The introduction has sections on the three oracles of Zechariah 9–11, Zechariah 12–14, and Malachi; historical context; Persian-period Yahwism; the Persian period, including the international scene, Syria-Palestine, Persian imperial strategies in the Levant and Judahite social and religious structure; Zechariah 9–14; Malachi; and the text. This is then followed by the commentary on the three oracles. There are no indexes.

The strengths of the work are many. Petersen provides up-to-date treatments of the form-critical genres of the three oracles. He delineates the form-critical structure, the traditio-historical issues, the historical background, and the literary-critical perspectives  of the various literary or rhetorical units. On the whole, he does solid exegetical work on the details of each pericope. He introduces archeological evidence where appropriate. The volume is remarkably free of printing errors. Finally, it is an unusually well-written commentary. It was a pleasure to read it because of its enjoyable English style. Petersen is obviously an excellent writer.

But there are also weaknesses. I looked in vain for messianic interpretations or applications. There is virtually no use of the NT, despite the fact that Zech 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7 are quoted in the NT. The same is true of Mal 1:2; 3:1. Perhaps Petersen does not do canonical exegesis or canonical theology.

Petersen also maintains that in spite of the presence of nations’ names (e.g. in Zech 9:1–7) “there are no . . . readily identifiable historical events that lie behind these texts.” Yet I have attempted to show that there are (see my commentary on Zechariah in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary). He argues that “there is no specific individual, like a Haggai or a Zechariah, to whom the literature [of Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi] may be attributed.” But again I have tried to demonstrate precisely the opposite for Zechariah 9–14. Baldwin and Merrill have done the same for Malachi. In evaluating Lamarche’s hypothesis of the unity of Zechariah 9–14, Petersen observes that the hypothesis is based on the notion that a messianic royal ˜gure is central to the message of those chapters. He then claims that “few scholars today hold this to be the case.” But I suspect that the majority of evangelical scholars do hold it to be the case.

While I feel free to recommend Petersen’s work because of its strengths, it needs to be balanced by such evangelical commentaries as Baldwin’s, Merrill’s, and even my own in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

Kenneth L. Barker

Lewisville, TX

Back to: Starting Library OT